Patient Care

A study of the relationship between hospital adherence to congestive heart failure (CHF) quality performance measures and 30-day readmission rates found little association, except for the assessment of left ventricular function, which, if not performed according to guidelines, was associated with higher readmissions.¹

Lead author Sula Mazimba, MD, MPH, and colleagues at Kettering Medical Center in Kettering, Ohio, looked at adherence to the performance measures, which in recent years have been adopted by quality organizations and third-party payors as surrogate markers for quality of care. These include documented ordering of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, providing discharge instructions to patients, and counseling on smoking cessation.

The study looked retrospectively at 6,000 CHF patients within a four-hospital healthcare system between 2001 and 2009, at a time when adherence to the performance measures rose to 99.9% from 95.8%. The hospital readmission rate for these patients averaged 19.6%.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

References

1. Mazimba S, Grant N, Parikh A, et al. Heart failure performance measures: Do they have an impact on 30-day readmission rates? Am J Med Qual. 2012 Oct 30 [Epub ahead of print].

A study of the relationship between hospital adherence to congestive heart failure (CHF) quality performance measures and 30-day readmission rates found little association, except for the assessment of left ventricular function, which, if not performed according to guidelines, was associated with higher readmissions.¹

Lead author Sula Mazimba, MD, MPH, and colleagues at Kettering Medical Center in Kettering, Ohio, looked at adherence to the performance measures, which in recent years have been adopted by quality organizations and third-party payors as surrogate markers for quality of care. These include documented ordering of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, providing discharge instructions to patients, and counseling on smoking cessation.

The study looked retrospectively at 6,000 CHF patients within a four-hospital healthcare system between 2001 and 2009, at a time when adherence to the performance measures rose to 99.9% from 95.8%. The hospital readmission rate for these patients averaged 19.6%.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

References

1. Mazimba S, Grant N, Parikh A, et al. Heart failure performance measures: Do they have an impact on 30-day readmission rates? Am J Med Qual. 2012 Oct 30 [Epub ahead of print].

A study of the relationship between hospital adherence to congestive heart failure (CHF) quality performance measures and 30-day readmission rates found little association, except for the assessment of left ventricular function, which, if not performed according to guidelines, was associated with higher readmissions.¹

Lead author Sula Mazimba, MD, MPH, and colleagues at Kettering Medical Center in Kettering, Ohio, looked at adherence to the performance measures, which in recent years have been adopted by quality organizations and third-party payors as surrogate markers for quality of care. These include documented ordering of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, providing discharge instructions to patients, and counseling on smoking cessation.

The study looked retrospectively at 6,000 CHF patients within a four-hospital healthcare system between 2001 and 2009, at a time when adherence to the performance measures rose to 99.9% from 95.8%. The hospital readmission rate for these patients averaged 19.6%.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

References

1. Mazimba S, Grant N, Parikh A, et al. Heart failure performance measures: Do they have an impact on 30-day readmission rates? Am J Med Qual. 2012 Oct 30 [Epub ahead of print].

If you’re ready to demonstrate your commitment to HM and hospitalized patients, you still have time to submit your SHM fellowship application.

The deadline for 2013 applications is Jan. 18. To apply online or learn more, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.

The class of 2013 Fellows will be inducted during a plenary session at SHM’s annual meeting in May in National Harbor, Md.

This year’s class will reach a milestone—not just for hospital medicine, but for all of healthcare. SHM has expanded eligibility in its Fellowship in Hospital Medicine program to include nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), and HM practice administrators. By opening the designation to nonphysicians, SHM becomes the only medical society to offer a singular designation to the entire care team.

SHM members who meet eligibility criteria are recognized as Fellows each year at the annual meeting. Based on current membership, SHM estimates that more than 300 NPs, PAs, and administrators are eligible immediately; thousands more will be eligible after they meet the three-year membership requirement for fellow status.

“We are proud to be able to recognize excellence within the specialty and contributions to the field by nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and practice administrators,” says SHM President Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM. “The standards by which SHM fellows are measured promote the highest quality of patient care and systems efficiency. And they can be equally applied to physicians, NPs, PAs, and administrators within the hospital medicine specialty.”

SHM’s Fellows program is rooted in the society’s Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine, and those who earn the Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) or Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine (SFHM) designation have demonstrated a commitment to hospital medicine, system change, and quality-improvement (QI) principles.

All candidates for the designation are required to submit applications that demonstrate experience, organizational teamwork and leadership, and a dedication to lifelong learning. Applicants must receive endorsement from practitioners in the field and are subject to committee review.

“Hospital medicine was built on the principle that caregivers must act as a team,” Dr. Frost says. “We are honored to recognize more members of that team today through our Fellows designation.”

Brendon Shank is associate vice president of communications for SHM.

If you’re ready to demonstrate your commitment to HM and hospitalized patients, you still have time to submit your SHM fellowship application.

The deadline for 2013 applications is Jan. 18. To apply online or learn more, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.

The class of 2013 Fellows will be inducted during a plenary session at SHM’s annual meeting in May in National Harbor, Md.

This year’s class will reach a milestone—not just for hospital medicine, but for all of healthcare. SHM has expanded eligibility in its Fellowship in Hospital Medicine program to include nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), and HM practice administrators. By opening the designation to nonphysicians, SHM becomes the only medical society to offer a singular designation to the entire care team.

SHM members who meet eligibility criteria are recognized as Fellows each year at the annual meeting. Based on current membership, SHM estimates that more than 300 NPs, PAs, and administrators are eligible immediately; thousands more will be eligible after they meet the three-year membership requirement for fellow status.

“We are proud to be able to recognize excellence within the specialty and contributions to the field by nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and practice administrators,” says SHM President Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM. “The standards by which SHM fellows are measured promote the highest quality of patient care and systems efficiency. And they can be equally applied to physicians, NPs, PAs, and administrators within the hospital medicine specialty.”

SHM’s Fellows program is rooted in the society’s Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine, and those who earn the Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) or Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine (SFHM) designation have demonstrated a commitment to hospital medicine, system change, and quality-improvement (QI) principles.

All candidates for the designation are required to submit applications that demonstrate experience, organizational teamwork and leadership, and a dedication to lifelong learning. Applicants must receive endorsement from practitioners in the field and are subject to committee review.

“Hospital medicine was built on the principle that caregivers must act as a team,” Dr. Frost says. “We are honored to recognize more members of that team today through our Fellows designation.”

Brendon Shank is associate vice president of communications for SHM.

If you’re ready to demonstrate your commitment to HM and hospitalized patients, you still have time to submit your SHM fellowship application.

The deadline for 2013 applications is Jan. 18. To apply online or learn more, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.

The class of 2013 Fellows will be inducted during a plenary session at SHM’s annual meeting in May in National Harbor, Md.

This year’s class will reach a milestone—not just for hospital medicine, but for all of healthcare. SHM has expanded eligibility in its Fellowship in Hospital Medicine program to include nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), and HM practice administrators. By opening the designation to nonphysicians, SHM becomes the only medical society to offer a singular designation to the entire care team.

SHM members who meet eligibility criteria are recognized as Fellows each year at the annual meeting. Based on current membership, SHM estimates that more than 300 NPs, PAs, and administrators are eligible immediately; thousands more will be eligible after they meet the three-year membership requirement for fellow status.

“We are proud to be able to recognize excellence within the specialty and contributions to the field by nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and practice administrators,” says SHM President Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM. “The standards by which SHM fellows are measured promote the highest quality of patient care and systems efficiency. And they can be equally applied to physicians, NPs, PAs, and administrators within the hospital medicine specialty.”

SHM’s Fellows program is rooted in the society’s Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine, and those who earn the Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) or Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine (SFHM) designation have demonstrated a commitment to hospital medicine, system change, and quality-improvement (QI) principles.

All candidates for the designation are required to submit applications that demonstrate experience, organizational teamwork and leadership, and a dedication to lifelong learning. Applicants must receive endorsement from practitioners in the field and are subject to committee review.

“Hospital medicine was built on the principle that caregivers must act as a team,” Dr. Frost says. “We are honored to recognize more members of that team today through our Fellows designation.”

Brendon Shank is associate vice president of communications for SHM.

In hospital medicine, what a hospitalist doesn’t do can be just as important as what he or she does do.

That’s why SHM and hospitalist experts from across the country collaborated with the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation on its groundbreaking Choosing Wisely campaign to publish 10 procedures that hospitalists should think twice about before conducting. Together, with more than a dozen medical specialties, SHM will announce the list of procedures in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 21.

Of the medical specialties contributing lists to Choosing Wisely, SHM is unique in that it will publish two lists (each with five recommendations): one for adult HM and another for pediatric HM.

Once the recommendations have been made public, hospitalists will have multiple ways of learning about them. SHM will publish the recommendations online, via email, and in The Hospitalist. Details about the unique process of developing the Choosing Wisely lists—and the impact they will have on everyday hospitalist practice—will be published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

Others in healthcare, including patients and family members, will have a chance to learn about Choosing Wisely through a partnership with Consumer Reports and the public dialogue that the campaign hopes to generate.

SHM President Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM, has been unequivocal in his support for the campaign and has urged all hospitalists to support it as well. “Attention to care affordability and experience are essential to reforming our broken healthcare system, so let’s lead the charge in these areas and help others who are doing the same,” Dr. Frost wrote in the November 2012 issue of The Hospitalist.

To get more involved with this industry-changing campaign, visit www.choosingwisely.org and check out the upcoming Choosing Wisely pre-course at SHM’s annual meeting at www.hospitalmedicine2013.org.

In hospital medicine, what a hospitalist doesn’t do can be just as important as what he or she does do.

That’s why SHM and hospitalist experts from across the country collaborated with the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation on its groundbreaking Choosing Wisely campaign to publish 10 procedures that hospitalists should think twice about before conducting. Together, with more than a dozen medical specialties, SHM will announce the list of procedures in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 21.

Of the medical specialties contributing lists to Choosing Wisely, SHM is unique in that it will publish two lists (each with five recommendations): one for adult HM and another for pediatric HM.

Once the recommendations have been made public, hospitalists will have multiple ways of learning about them. SHM will publish the recommendations online, via email, and in The Hospitalist. Details about the unique process of developing the Choosing Wisely lists—and the impact they will have on everyday hospitalist practice—will be published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

Others in healthcare, including patients and family members, will have a chance to learn about Choosing Wisely through a partnership with Consumer Reports and the public dialogue that the campaign hopes to generate.

SHM President Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM, has been unequivocal in his support for the campaign and has urged all hospitalists to support it as well. “Attention to care affordability and experience are essential to reforming our broken healthcare system, so let’s lead the charge in these areas and help others who are doing the same,” Dr. Frost wrote in the November 2012 issue of The Hospitalist.

To get more involved with this industry-changing campaign, visit www.choosingwisely.org and check out the upcoming Choosing Wisely pre-course at SHM’s annual meeting at www.hospitalmedicine2013.org.

In hospital medicine, what a hospitalist doesn’t do can be just as important as what he or she does do.

That’s why SHM and hospitalist experts from across the country collaborated with the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation on its groundbreaking Choosing Wisely campaign to publish 10 procedures that hospitalists should think twice about before conducting. Together, with more than a dozen medical specialties, SHM will announce the list of procedures in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 21.

Of the medical specialties contributing lists to Choosing Wisely, SHM is unique in that it will publish two lists (each with five recommendations): one for adult HM and another for pediatric HM.

Once the recommendations have been made public, hospitalists will have multiple ways of learning about them. SHM will publish the recommendations online, via email, and in The Hospitalist. Details about the unique process of developing the Choosing Wisely lists—and the impact they will have on everyday hospitalist practice—will be published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

Others in healthcare, including patients and family members, will have a chance to learn about Choosing Wisely through a partnership with Consumer Reports and the public dialogue that the campaign hopes to generate.

SHM President Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM, has been unequivocal in his support for the campaign and has urged all hospitalists to support it as well. “Attention to care affordability and experience are essential to reforming our broken healthcare system, so let’s lead the charge in these areas and help others who are doing the same,” Dr. Frost wrote in the November 2012 issue of The Hospitalist.

To get more involved with this industry-changing campaign, visit www.choosingwisely.org and check out the upcoming Choosing Wisely pre-course at SHM’s annual meeting at www.hospitalmedicine2013.org.

In This Edition

Literature At A Glance

A guide to this month’s studies

1. Interventions that improve discharge handovers reviewed
2. Duration of in-hospital cardiac resuscitation and survival rates
3. Early sepsis intervention strategies to decrease mortality risk
4. Hypoglycemia linked to increased mortality in critically ill
5. Increased bleeding risk for cardiac patients
6. Hospital-run vs. anesthesiologist-run preoperative clinics
7. Postoperative delirium and cognitive impairment in cardiac patients
8. Benefits of resuming anticoagulants after GI bleeding
9. Preoperative hyponatremia and risk of perioperative mortality

Systematic Review Highlights Several Interventions That Improve Discharge Handovers

Clinical question: Do interventions to improve patient handovers at discharge have positive effects on patient care?

Background: The transition from hospital to primary care is often suboptimal and has been associated with unfavorable outcomes, including hospital readmission, increased healthcare utilization, and adverse drug events post-discharge. This review sought to characterize different types of interventions aimed at improving discharge handovers and to evaluate their effects.

Study design: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Setting: Studies published from January 1990 to March 2011.

Synopsis: Review of published databases identified 36 randomized controlled studies on interventions to improve discharge handovers. Studies were blindly evaluated by two reviewers on quality, interventions, and outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes; thus, statistical analysis was not possible. Most studies evaluated multicomponent interventions and had more than one outcome measure.

Of the 36 studies reviewed, 25 reported statistically significant improvements in outcomes, including reduced hospital utilization and improved continuity of care. Effective interventions included medication reconciliation; structured discharge information (facilitated by electronic resources); multidisciplinary discharge planning; shared involvement in arranging care between inpatient and outpatient physicians; and Web-based access to discharge information by the outpatient provider.

The complexity of the interventions and the heterogeneity of reported results did not allow for firm conclusions to be drawn regarding which specific interventions had the strongest effects.

Bottom line: Interventions that target the quality and safety of handovers between hospital and outpatient providers at discharge can significantly reduce hospital utilization and improve continuity of care.

Citation: Hesselink G, Schoonhoven L, Barach P, et al. Improving patient handovers from hospital to primary care: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:417-428.

Longer Duration of In-Hospital Cardiac Resuscitation Associated with Increased Survival

Clinical question: Are prolonged cardiac resuscitation efforts associated with improved outcomes?

Background: There is little evidence or guidelines on how long to maintain resuscitative efforts during in-hospital cardiac arrest, leading to variation in practice. This study characterized patterns of resuscitation duration and relationship to the return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge.

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: Four hundred thirty-five U.S. hospitals reporting data to the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines: Resuscitation registry.

Synopsis: Using duration of resuscitation in nonsurvivors as a surrogate for the tendency of a facility to perform prolonged efforts, hospitals were divided into quartiles. Overall, of 64,339 patients in the registry, 31,198 (48.5%) had return of circulation and 9,912 (15.4%) survived to discharge. Resuscitative efforts in nonsurvivors ranged from a median of 16 to 25 minutes between the lowest and highest quartiles.

There was a stepwise increase in the likelihood for patients to have return of spontaneous circulation and to survive to discharge between each quartile. Specifically, comparing shortest to longest, there was a significant adjusted odds ratio of 1.12 for both the return of circulation (P<0.0001) and survival to discharge (P=0.021). The survival benefit was most apparent for those with pulseless electrical activity or asystole as initial rhythms, as compared to ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation.

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which meant causality could not be determined. Additionally, the study did not account for the quality of resuscitative efforts (e.g. depth of chest compressions, adherence with guidelines), which might have influenced outcomes. Importantly, the study looked at survival to discharge, but it did not evaluate long-term survival or functional status post-discharge, which might better reflect the success of resuscitation.

Bottom line: Prolonged resuscitative efforts were observed to be associated with increased likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge; this data might provide clinical guidance in determining when to stop resuscitation efforts.

Citation: Goldberger ZD, Chan PS, Berg RA, et al. Duration of resuscitation efforts and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: an observational study. Lancet. 2012;380:1473-1481.

Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies Decrease Mortality, Length of Stay, and Cost

Clinical question: For patients with sepsis or septic shock, what is the impact of a real-time comprehensive continuous quality-improvement (QI) initiative on in-hospital mortality, morbidity, and healthcare resource utilization in community and tertiary-care hospitals in the U.S.?

Background: Multiple single-center trials have demonstrated that early sepsis intervention strategies (early goal-directed therapy, resuscitation bundles) improve in-hospital mortality. Little is known about the effectiveness of incorporating these strategies into a real-time continuous QI initiative and implementing interventions across multiple sites simultaneously.

Study design: Pre-post at some sites and concurrent implementation design at other sites.

Setting: Five community and six-tertiary care U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: The GENeralized Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies (GENESIS) project was a CQI initiative that combined several QI concepts with validated early sepsis interventions known as resuscitation bundles (RB). Continuous QI was implemented on patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in both before and after designs (eight hospitals), and in concurrent designs (three hospitals). The control group was comprised of historical controls treated before GENESIS and patients with incomplete implementation of RB, totaling 1,554 patients. The treatment group included patients treated after GENESIS and those with complete RB compliance, totaling 4,801 patients.

Compared with the control group, patients in the treatment group had a 33% decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63-0.72), an absolute decrease in hospital length of stay (LOS) by 5.1 days (20.7 days vs. 15.6 days, P<0.001) and a $47,923 reduction in total hospital charges (P<0.001). Limitations included the study design (not a prospective randomized trial), and the possibility of other concurrent unmeasured quality initiatives taking place at the study sites, which might have contributed to improved outcomes.

Bottom line: Early sepsis intervention strategies in the form of a comprehensive continuous QI initiative can decrease mortality, hospital LOS, and cost in both tertiary-care and community hospitals.

Citation: Cannon CM, Holthaus CV, Zubrow MT, et al. The GENESIS project (GENeralized Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies): a multicenter quality improvement collaborative. J Intensive Care Med. 2012; Aug 17. doi:10.1177/0885066612453025.

Hypoglycemia Associated with Increased Mortality in the Critically Ill

Clinical question: Is hypoglycemia associated with mortality in critically ill patients?

Background: Initial studies suggested that intensive glucose control reduces mortality in surgical ICU patients and reduces morbidity in medical ICU patients, but further studies have not supported these findings. Recent literature shows conflicting results on the effects of intense glucose control in critically ill patients.

Study design: Post-hoc analysis of the NICE-SUGAR study database.

Setting: ICUs in 42 hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

Synopsis: The NICE-SUGAR study was a multicenter trial that randomized 6,104 ICU patients to intensive (glucose 80 to 108 mg/dL) or conventional glucose control (≤180 mg/dL). Patients were followed for 90 days or until death, with death being the primary end point. Severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL) was recorded in 6.8% of patients in the intensive glucose control group versus 0.5% in the conventional group. The study showed that intensive glucose control was associated with increased mortality among adult ICU patients.

Using the NICE-SUGAR database, the authors conducted a Cox regression analysis to examine the associations between hypoglycemia and death. A total of 2,714 patients had moderate hypoglycemia (glucose 41 to 70 mg/dL), and 223 patients had severe hypoglycemia. The hazard ratio for mortality was 1.41 (95% CI 1.21-1.62, P<0.001) for patients with moderate hypoglycemia and 2.10 (95% CI 1.59-2.77, P<0.001) for severe hypoglycemia, compared to patients without hypoglycemia.

These findings show a strong association between mortality and hypoglycemia but do not prove causality. Hospitalists caring for ICU patients must be aware that hypoglycemia is associated with mortality and focus on avoiding hypoglycemia. The American Diabetes Association currently recommends a target blood glucose level of 140 to 180 mg/dL for most critically ill patients.

Bottom line: Hypoglycemia (glucose <70 mg/dL) is associated with increased risk of mortality in ICU patients.

Citation: Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, et al. Hypoglycemia and risk of death in critically ill patients. New Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1108-1118.

Increased Bleeding Risk for Cardiac Patients on Multiple Antithrombotic Drugs

Clinical question: Is there an increased risk of bleeding in atrial fibrillation patients treated with multiple antithrombotic agents following acute myocardial infarction (MI) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)?

Background: Current treatment for atrial fibrillation patients with MI or PCI includes vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy to prevent stroke and antiplatelet agents to prevent further coronary events. There are inconsistent findings on the safety and efficacy of combined therapy with VKA, aspirin, and clopidogrel, specifically with regard to bleeding risk.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Nationwide registry in Denmark.

Synopsis: Using the National Patient Registry in Denmark, 11,480 patients with atrial fibrillation who were admitted for MI or PCI were identified. Patients were grouped by medication regimen, including monotherapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, or VKA), dual therapy (dual antiplatelet or VKA+antiplatelet), or triple therapy (VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel). The primary outcome was nonfatal or fatal bleeding within one year.

Patients receiving triple therapy had the highest rate of bleeding, with a crude incidence of 14.2 events per 100 person-years. Patients treated with VKA+aspirin+clopidogel were significantly more likely than those on VKA+antiplatelet (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.04-2.08) or dual antiplatelet (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.58-3.08) treatment to have a bleeding event within 90 days, and similar trends were seen at 90 to 360 days. There was no significant difference in thromboembolic events among patients on VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel versus VKA+antiplatelet therapy.

Only bleeding events that required hospitalization were recorded, which might underestimate the bleeding risks of these regimens. Additionally, INR levels were not determined, which could impact both bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes.

However, this study does suggest that there are significant bleeding risks among patients treated with triple therapy. Hospitalists should weigh the risks of thromboembolic events with bleeding risks in patients with atrial fibrillation and MI/PCI, and only prescribe VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel with these risks in mind.

Bottom line: Immediate and continued bleeding risk is increased in patients with atrial fibrillation admitted with PCI or MI who are placed on triple antithrombotic therapy with VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel.

Citation: Lamberts M, Olesen JB, Ruwald MH, et al. Bleeding after initiation of multiple antithrombotic drugs, including triple therapy, in atrial fibrillation patients following myocardial infarction and coronary intervention. Circulation. 2012;126:1185-1193.

Hospitalist-Run Preoperative Clinic Improves Outcomes in Complex Surgical Patients

Clinical question: Do hospitalist-run preoperative clinics improve outcomes for medically complex patients undergoing noncardiac surgery compared to traditional anesthesiologist-run preoperative clinics?

Background: Studies of perioperative medical consultation have shown inconsistent effects on quality of care, but preoperative medical consultation has only been evaluated in the immediate preoperative period (one day prior to surgery or less). Little is known about the impact of involving hospitalists earlier in the preoperative period.

Study design: Retrospective, pre-post study.

Setting: Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS).

Synopsis: In July 2004, the VAGLAHS Preoperative Clinic transitioned from being anesthesiologist-run to hospitalist-run. Mid-level providers were trained on preoperative medical assessment, and patients were only evaluated by anesthesia staff on the day of surgery, after they had been deemed medically acceptable for surgery. All patients seen in the clinic from July 2003 to July 2005 were included in the study. Period A included patients evaluated when anesthesia staff supervised the clinic. Period B included patients evaluated during the first year of the hospitalist-run system.

There were 1,101 patients with inpatient surgeries in Period A, and 1,126 patients in Period B. Mean length of stay (LOS) decreased to 5.28 days during the hospitalist-run model from 9.87 days during the anesthesiologist-run model. LOS reductions were most notable in patients with ASA scores of 3 or higher; LOS reductions were not seen in an internal control of surgical patients who were not evaluated in the preoperative clinic. Inpatient mortality was also reduced in Period B compared with Period A, to 4 cases (0.36%) from 14 cases (1.27%) (P=0.0158). Specific processes that led to improved outcomes for patients in Period B could not be identified. The VA study setting might limit the generalizability of the results.

Bottom line: A hospitalist-run preoperative clinic was associated with decreased LOS and inpatient mortality compared with a traditional anesthesiologist-run clinic.

Citation: Vazirani S, Lankarani-Fard A, Lian LJ, Stelzner M, Asch SM. Preoperative processes and outcomes after implementation of a hospitalist-run preoperative clinic. J Hosp Med. 2012 Sep 7. doi:10.1002/jhm.1968.

Delirium after Cardiac Surgery Associated with Prolonged Cognitive Impairment

Clinical question: Is postoperative delirium associated with decreased cognitive function in the first year after cardiac surgery?

Background: In general populations, delirium has been associated with long-term decline in cognitive ability. Delirium and cognitive dysfunction are both common following cardiac surgery, but the effects of postoperative delirium on the trajectory of cognitive function over time is unclear.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Two academic medical centers and a Veterans Administration hospital.

Synopsis: Two hundred twenty-five patients aged 60 or older who were scheduled to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement surgery were included. Patients underwent preoperative assessment cognitive function with the use of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Starting on postoperative Day 2, patients underwent daily assessment for delirium. After discharge, cognitive function was reassessed at months one, six, and 12.

Postoperative delirium occurred in 103 patients (46%). Patients with delirium were older, had higher comorbidity scores, and had lower MMSE scores at baseline. Among the overall study population, adjusted MMSE scores dropped 4.6 points from baseline to postoperative Day 2, then were observed to increase by approximately one point per day during postoperative days 3 to 5 with minimal change thereafter. Patients with delirium had greater decrease in cognitive function in the immediate postoperative period compared to patients without delirium (7.7 points vs. 2.1, P<0.001).

Patients without delirium returned to their baseline cognitive ability by one month postoperatively, while patients who had delirium were still making gains up to six months post-operatively, never returning to baseline level of function by one year. Unmeasured confounders and uncertain sensitivity of the MMSE to detect mild cognitive impairment might limit these findings.

Bottom line: Cognitive function decreases in the immediate postoperative period following cardiac surgery. Compared to patients without delirium, patients with delirium experience more dramatic and prolonged cognitive impairment postoperatively, without returning to their preoperative level of cognitive function at one year.

Citation: Saczynski JS, Marcantonio ER, Quach L, et al. Cognitive trajectories after postoperative delirium. New Engl J Med. 2012;367:30-39.

Benefits of Resuming Anticoagulation after GI Bleed Outweigh Risks for Most Patients

Clinical question: In warfarin-treated patients who have experienced gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, what are the patterns of restarting warfarin therapy and the incidence of thrombosis, recurrent GI bleed, and death in the 90 days following index bleed?

Background: In warfarin-treated patients who experience GI bleeding, warfarin is often temporarily held or permanently discontinued, placing patients at increased risk for developing thromboembolism. Little is known about the risks, benefits, and timing of restarting warfarin in this patient population.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Kaiser Permanente Colorado.

Synopsis: Using clinical and administrative databases, 442 patients who presented with GI bleeding while receiving warfarin therapy were identified. Patients were grouped by whether they resumed warfarin (n=260, including 41 patients in whom anticoagulation was never interrupted), or did not resume warfarin therapy (n=182) in the 90 days following index GI bleed. Patients with prosthetic heart valves or GI bleeding localized to the rectum/anus were more commonly restarted on warfarin, whereas older patients and those in whom the source of bleeding was not identified were less likely to be restarted on warfarin therapy.

Restarting warfarin therapy after index GI bleed was associated with lower risk of thrombosis (HR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.58) and death from any cause (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.62), and it was not associated with a significant increase in risk for recurrent GI bleed (HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.50-3.57).

The authors concluded that for many patients who experience a warfarin-associated GI bleed, the benefits of restarting warfarin therapy outweigh the risks. No conclusions were made regarding the optimal timing of resuming therapy. Limitations included the use of administrative data and inability to determine the potential influence of aspirin use on outcomes.

Bottom line: Resuming warfarin in the 90 days following a warfarin-associated GI bleed is associated with decreased risk of thrombosis and death without increased risk for recurrent GI bleed.

Citation: Witt DM, Delate T, Garcia DA, et al. Risk of thromboembolism, recurrent hemorrhage, and death after warfarin therapy interruption for gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Sep 12. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.4261.

Preoperative Hyponatremia Associated with Increased Risk for Perioperative Complications and Mortality

Clinical question: Is preoperative hyponatremia an indicator of perioperative morbidity and mortality?

Background: Hyponatremia is a common diagnosis in the hospital setting and is associated with adverse outcomes, even in mild cases. However, it is unclear if this association exists in surgical patients when detected preoperatively.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Academic and community hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).

Synopsis: A total of 75,423 adult patients with hyponatremia (sodium <135 mEq/L) who were undergoing major surgery were compared to 888,840 patients with normal preoperative sodium levels over a six-year period. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative major coronary events, stroke, wound infection, pneumonia, and length of stay (LOS).

Compared to patients with normal sodium levels, those with preoperative hyponatremia had higher rates of perioperative mortality (5.2% vs. 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.38-1.50), with increased risk that correlated with increasing severity of hyponatremia. Association with postoperative mortality was particularly strong among hyponatremic patients with ASA scores of 1 or 2 and those undergoing nonemergency surgery.

Patients with preoperative hyponatremia were also found to have increased risk for all postoperative complications evaluated, with the exception of stroke. Limitations included the potential for unmeasured confounders and not being able to account for the role of medications used perioperatively. Research is needed to determine whether correcting preoperative hyponatremia lessens the risk of mortality and other postoperative complications.

Bottom line: Among patients undergoing major surgery, preoperative hyponatremia is a predictor of postoperative 30-day mortality and morbidity.

Citation: Leung AA, McAlister FA, Rogers SO, et al. Preoperative hyponatremia and perioperative complications. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1-8.

In This Edition

Literature At A Glance

A guide to this month’s studies

1. Interventions that improve discharge handovers reviewed
2. Duration of in-hospital cardiac resuscitation and survival rates
3. Early sepsis intervention strategies to decrease mortality risk
4. Hypoglycemia linked to increased mortality in critically ill
5. Increased bleeding risk for cardiac patients
6. Hospital-run vs. anesthesiologist-run preoperative clinics
7. Postoperative delirium and cognitive impairment in cardiac patients
8. Benefits of resuming anticoagulants after GI bleeding
9. Preoperative hyponatremia and risk of perioperative mortality

Systematic Review Highlights Several Interventions That Improve Discharge Handovers

Clinical question: Do interventions to improve patient handovers at discharge have positive effects on patient care?

Background: The transition from hospital to primary care is often suboptimal and has been associated with unfavorable outcomes, including hospital readmission, increased healthcare utilization, and adverse drug events post-discharge. This review sought to characterize different types of interventions aimed at improving discharge handovers and to evaluate their effects.

Study design: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Setting: Studies published from January 1990 to March 2011.

Synopsis: Review of published databases identified 36 randomized controlled studies on interventions to improve discharge handovers. Studies were blindly evaluated by two reviewers on quality, interventions, and outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes; thus, statistical analysis was not possible. Most studies evaluated multicomponent interventions and had more than one outcome measure.

Of the 36 studies reviewed, 25 reported statistically significant improvements in outcomes, including reduced hospital utilization and improved continuity of care. Effective interventions included medication reconciliation; structured discharge information (facilitated by electronic resources); multidisciplinary discharge planning; shared involvement in arranging care between inpatient and outpatient physicians; and Web-based access to discharge information by the outpatient provider.

The complexity of the interventions and the heterogeneity of reported results did not allow for firm conclusions to be drawn regarding which specific interventions had the strongest effects.

Bottom line: Interventions that target the quality and safety of handovers between hospital and outpatient providers at discharge can significantly reduce hospital utilization and improve continuity of care.

Citation: Hesselink G, Schoonhoven L, Barach P, et al. Improving patient handovers from hospital to primary care: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:417-428.

Longer Duration of In-Hospital Cardiac Resuscitation Associated with Increased Survival

Clinical question: Are prolonged cardiac resuscitation efforts associated with improved outcomes?

Background: There is little evidence or guidelines on how long to maintain resuscitative efforts during in-hospital cardiac arrest, leading to variation in practice. This study characterized patterns of resuscitation duration and relationship to the return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge.

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: Four hundred thirty-five U.S. hospitals reporting data to the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines: Resuscitation registry.

Synopsis: Using duration of resuscitation in nonsurvivors as a surrogate for the tendency of a facility to perform prolonged efforts, hospitals were divided into quartiles. Overall, of 64,339 patients in the registry, 31,198 (48.5%) had return of circulation and 9,912 (15.4%) survived to discharge. Resuscitative efforts in nonsurvivors ranged from a median of 16 to 25 minutes between the lowest and highest quartiles.

There was a stepwise increase in the likelihood for patients to have return of spontaneous circulation and to survive to discharge between each quartile. Specifically, comparing shortest to longest, there was a significant adjusted odds ratio of 1.12 for both the return of circulation (P<0.0001) and survival to discharge (P=0.021). The survival benefit was most apparent for those with pulseless electrical activity or asystole as initial rhythms, as compared to ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation.

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which meant causality could not be determined. Additionally, the study did not account for the quality of resuscitative efforts (e.g. depth of chest compressions, adherence with guidelines), which might have influenced outcomes. Importantly, the study looked at survival to discharge, but it did not evaluate long-term survival or functional status post-discharge, which might better reflect the success of resuscitation.

Bottom line: Prolonged resuscitative efforts were observed to be associated with increased likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge; this data might provide clinical guidance in determining when to stop resuscitation efforts.

Citation: Goldberger ZD, Chan PS, Berg RA, et al. Duration of resuscitation efforts and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: an observational study. Lancet. 2012;380:1473-1481.

Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies Decrease Mortality, Length of Stay, and Cost

Clinical question: For patients with sepsis or septic shock, what is the impact of a real-time comprehensive continuous quality-improvement (QI) initiative on in-hospital mortality, morbidity, and healthcare resource utilization in community and tertiary-care hospitals in the U.S.?

Background: Multiple single-center trials have demonstrated that early sepsis intervention strategies (early goal-directed therapy, resuscitation bundles) improve in-hospital mortality. Little is known about the effectiveness of incorporating these strategies into a real-time continuous QI initiative and implementing interventions across multiple sites simultaneously.

Study design: Pre-post at some sites and concurrent implementation design at other sites.

Setting: Five community and six-tertiary care U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: The GENeralized Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies (GENESIS) project was a CQI initiative that combined several QI concepts with validated early sepsis interventions known as resuscitation bundles (RB). Continuous QI was implemented on patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in both before and after designs (eight hospitals), and in concurrent designs (three hospitals). The control group was comprised of historical controls treated before GENESIS and patients with incomplete implementation of RB, totaling 1,554 patients. The treatment group included patients treated after GENESIS and those with complete RB compliance, totaling 4,801 patients.

Compared with the control group, patients in the treatment group had a 33% decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63-0.72), an absolute decrease in hospital length of stay (LOS) by 5.1 days (20.7 days vs. 15.6 days, P<0.001) and a $47,923 reduction in total hospital charges (P<0.001). Limitations included the study design (not a prospective randomized trial), and the possibility of other concurrent unmeasured quality initiatives taking place at the study sites, which might have contributed to improved outcomes.

Bottom line: Early sepsis intervention strategies in the form of a comprehensive continuous QI initiative can decrease mortality, hospital LOS, and cost in both tertiary-care and community hospitals.

Citation: Cannon CM, Holthaus CV, Zubrow MT, et al. The GENESIS project (GENeralized Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies): a multicenter quality improvement collaborative. J Intensive Care Med. 2012; Aug 17. doi:10.1177/0885066612453025.

Hypoglycemia Associated with Increased Mortality in the Critically Ill

Clinical question: Is hypoglycemia associated with mortality in critically ill patients?

Background: Initial studies suggested that intensive glucose control reduces mortality in surgical ICU patients and reduces morbidity in medical ICU patients, but further studies have not supported these findings. Recent literature shows conflicting results on the effects of intense glucose control in critically ill patients.

Study design: Post-hoc analysis of the NICE-SUGAR study database.

Setting: ICUs in 42 hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

Synopsis: The NICE-SUGAR study was a multicenter trial that randomized 6,104 ICU patients to intensive (glucose 80 to 108 mg/dL) or conventional glucose control (≤180 mg/dL). Patients were followed for 90 days or until death, with death being the primary end point. Severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL) was recorded in 6.8% of patients in the intensive glucose control group versus 0.5% in the conventional group. The study showed that intensive glucose control was associated with increased mortality among adult ICU patients.

Using the NICE-SUGAR database, the authors conducted a Cox regression analysis to examine the associations between hypoglycemia and death. A total of 2,714 patients had moderate hypoglycemia (glucose 41 to 70 mg/dL), and 223 patients had severe hypoglycemia. The hazard ratio for mortality was 1.41 (95% CI 1.21-1.62, P<0.001) for patients with moderate hypoglycemia and 2.10 (95% CI 1.59-2.77, P<0.001) for severe hypoglycemia, compared to patients without hypoglycemia.

These findings show a strong association between mortality and hypoglycemia but do not prove causality. Hospitalists caring for ICU patients must be aware that hypoglycemia is associated with mortality and focus on avoiding hypoglycemia. The American Diabetes Association currently recommends a target blood glucose level of 140 to 180 mg/dL for most critically ill patients.

Bottom line: Hypoglycemia (glucose <70 mg/dL) is associated with increased risk of mortality in ICU patients.

Citation: Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, et al. Hypoglycemia and risk of death in critically ill patients. New Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1108-1118.

Increased Bleeding Risk for Cardiac Patients on Multiple Antithrombotic Drugs

Clinical question: Is there an increased risk of bleeding in atrial fibrillation patients treated with multiple antithrombotic agents following acute myocardial infarction (MI) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)?

Background: Current treatment for atrial fibrillation patients with MI or PCI includes vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy to prevent stroke and antiplatelet agents to prevent further coronary events. There are inconsistent findings on the safety and efficacy of combined therapy with VKA, aspirin, and clopidogrel, specifically with regard to bleeding risk.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Nationwide registry in Denmark.

Synopsis: Using the National Patient Registry in Denmark, 11,480 patients with atrial fibrillation who were admitted for MI or PCI were identified. Patients were grouped by medication regimen, including monotherapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, or VKA), dual therapy (dual antiplatelet or VKA+antiplatelet), or triple therapy (VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel). The primary outcome was nonfatal or fatal bleeding within one year.

Patients receiving triple therapy had the highest rate of bleeding, with a crude incidence of 14.2 events per 100 person-years. Patients treated with VKA+aspirin+clopidogel were significantly more likely than those on VKA+antiplatelet (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.04-2.08) or dual antiplatelet (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.58-3.08) treatment to have a bleeding event within 90 days, and similar trends were seen at 90 to 360 days. There was no significant difference in thromboembolic events among patients on VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel versus VKA+antiplatelet therapy.

Only bleeding events that required hospitalization were recorded, which might underestimate the bleeding risks of these regimens. Additionally, INR levels were not determined, which could impact both bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes.

However, this study does suggest that there are significant bleeding risks among patients treated with triple therapy. Hospitalists should weigh the risks of thromboembolic events with bleeding risks in patients with atrial fibrillation and MI/PCI, and only prescribe VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel with these risks in mind.

Bottom line: Immediate and continued bleeding risk is increased in patients with atrial fibrillation admitted with PCI or MI who are placed on triple antithrombotic therapy with VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel.

Citation: Lamberts M, Olesen JB, Ruwald MH, et al. Bleeding after initiation of multiple antithrombotic drugs, including triple therapy, in atrial fibrillation patients following myocardial infarction and coronary intervention. Circulation. 2012;126:1185-1193.

Hospitalist-Run Preoperative Clinic Improves Outcomes in Complex Surgical Patients

Clinical question: Do hospitalist-run preoperative clinics improve outcomes for medically complex patients undergoing noncardiac surgery compared to traditional anesthesiologist-run preoperative clinics?

Background: Studies of perioperative medical consultation have shown inconsistent effects on quality of care, but preoperative medical consultation has only been evaluated in the immediate preoperative period (one day prior to surgery or less). Little is known about the impact of involving hospitalists earlier in the preoperative period.

Study design: Retrospective, pre-post study.

Setting: Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS).

Synopsis: In July 2004, the VAGLAHS Preoperative Clinic transitioned from being anesthesiologist-run to hospitalist-run. Mid-level providers were trained on preoperative medical assessment, and patients were only evaluated by anesthesia staff on the day of surgery, after they had been deemed medically acceptable for surgery. All patients seen in the clinic from July 2003 to July 2005 were included in the study. Period A included patients evaluated when anesthesia staff supervised the clinic. Period B included patients evaluated during the first year of the hospitalist-run system.

There were 1,101 patients with inpatient surgeries in Period A, and 1,126 patients in Period B. Mean length of stay (LOS) decreased to 5.28 days during the hospitalist-run model from 9.87 days during the anesthesiologist-run model. LOS reductions were most notable in patients with ASA scores of 3 or higher; LOS reductions were not seen in an internal control of surgical patients who were not evaluated in the preoperative clinic. Inpatient mortality was also reduced in Period B compared with Period A, to 4 cases (0.36%) from 14 cases (1.27%) (P=0.0158). Specific processes that led to improved outcomes for patients in Period B could not be identified. The VA study setting might limit the generalizability of the results.

Bottom line: A hospitalist-run preoperative clinic was associated with decreased LOS and inpatient mortality compared with a traditional anesthesiologist-run clinic.

Citation: Vazirani S, Lankarani-Fard A, Lian LJ, Stelzner M, Asch SM. Preoperative processes and outcomes after implementation of a hospitalist-run preoperative clinic. J Hosp Med. 2012 Sep 7. doi:10.1002/jhm.1968.

Delirium after Cardiac Surgery Associated with Prolonged Cognitive Impairment

Clinical question: Is postoperative delirium associated with decreased cognitive function in the first year after cardiac surgery?

Background: In general populations, delirium has been associated with long-term decline in cognitive ability. Delirium and cognitive dysfunction are both common following cardiac surgery, but the effects of postoperative delirium on the trajectory of cognitive function over time is unclear.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Two academic medical centers and a Veterans Administration hospital.

Synopsis: Two hundred twenty-five patients aged 60 or older who were scheduled to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement surgery were included. Patients underwent preoperative assessment cognitive function with the use of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Starting on postoperative Day 2, patients underwent daily assessment for delirium. After discharge, cognitive function was reassessed at months one, six, and 12.

Postoperative delirium occurred in 103 patients (46%). Patients with delirium were older, had higher comorbidity scores, and had lower MMSE scores at baseline. Among the overall study population, adjusted MMSE scores dropped 4.6 points from baseline to postoperative Day 2, then were observed to increase by approximately one point per day during postoperative days 3 to 5 with minimal change thereafter. Patients with delirium had greater decrease in cognitive function in the immediate postoperative period compared to patients without delirium (7.7 points vs. 2.1, P<0.001).

Patients without delirium returned to their baseline cognitive ability by one month postoperatively, while patients who had delirium were still making gains up to six months post-operatively, never returning to baseline level of function by one year. Unmeasured confounders and uncertain sensitivity of the MMSE to detect mild cognitive impairment might limit these findings.

Bottom line: Cognitive function decreases in the immediate postoperative period following cardiac surgery. Compared to patients without delirium, patients with delirium experience more dramatic and prolonged cognitive impairment postoperatively, without returning to their preoperative level of cognitive function at one year.

Citation: Saczynski JS, Marcantonio ER, Quach L, et al. Cognitive trajectories after postoperative delirium. New Engl J Med. 2012;367:30-39.

Benefits of Resuming Anticoagulation after GI Bleed Outweigh Risks for Most Patients

Clinical question: In warfarin-treated patients who have experienced gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, what are the patterns of restarting warfarin therapy and the incidence of thrombosis, recurrent GI bleed, and death in the 90 days following index bleed?

Background: In warfarin-treated patients who experience GI bleeding, warfarin is often temporarily held or permanently discontinued, placing patients at increased risk for developing thromboembolism. Little is known about the risks, benefits, and timing of restarting warfarin in this patient population.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Kaiser Permanente Colorado.

Synopsis: Using clinical and administrative databases, 442 patients who presented with GI bleeding while receiving warfarin therapy were identified. Patients were grouped by whether they resumed warfarin (n=260, including 41 patients in whom anticoagulation was never interrupted), or did not resume warfarin therapy (n=182) in the 90 days following index GI bleed. Patients with prosthetic heart valves or GI bleeding localized to the rectum/anus were more commonly restarted on warfarin, whereas older patients and those in whom the source of bleeding was not identified were less likely to be restarted on warfarin therapy.

Restarting warfarin therapy after index GI bleed was associated with lower risk of thrombosis (HR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.58) and death from any cause (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.62), and it was not associated with a significant increase in risk for recurrent GI bleed (HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.50-3.57).

The authors concluded that for many patients who experience a warfarin-associated GI bleed, the benefits of restarting warfarin therapy outweigh the risks. No conclusions were made regarding the optimal timing of resuming therapy. Limitations included the use of administrative data and inability to determine the potential influence of aspirin use on outcomes.

Bottom line: Resuming warfarin in the 90 days following a warfarin-associated GI bleed is associated with decreased risk of thrombosis and death without increased risk for recurrent GI bleed.

Citation: Witt DM, Delate T, Garcia DA, et al. Risk of thromboembolism, recurrent hemorrhage, and death after warfarin therapy interruption for gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Sep 12. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.4261.

Preoperative Hyponatremia Associated with Increased Risk for Perioperative Complications and Mortality

Clinical question: Is preoperative hyponatremia an indicator of perioperative morbidity and mortality?

Background: Hyponatremia is a common diagnosis in the hospital setting and is associated with adverse outcomes, even in mild cases. However, it is unclear if this association exists in surgical patients when detected preoperatively.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Academic and community hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).

Synopsis: A total of 75,423 adult patients with hyponatremia (sodium <135 mEq/L) who were undergoing major surgery were compared to 888,840 patients with normal preoperative sodium levels over a six-year period. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative major coronary events, stroke, wound infection, pneumonia, and length of stay (LOS).

Compared to patients with normal sodium levels, those with preoperative hyponatremia had higher rates of perioperative mortality (5.2% vs. 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.38-1.50), with increased risk that correlated with increasing severity of hyponatremia. Association with postoperative mortality was particularly strong among hyponatremic patients with ASA scores of 1 or 2 and those undergoing nonemergency surgery.

Patients with preoperative hyponatremia were also found to have increased risk for all postoperative complications evaluated, with the exception of stroke. Limitations included the potential for unmeasured confounders and not being able to account for the role of medications used perioperatively. Research is needed to determine whether correcting preoperative hyponatremia lessens the risk of mortality and other postoperative complications.

Bottom line: Among patients undergoing major surgery, preoperative hyponatremia is a predictor of postoperative 30-day mortality and morbidity.

Citation: Leung AA, McAlister FA, Rogers SO, et al. Preoperative hyponatremia and perioperative complications. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1-8.

In This Edition

Literature At A Glance

A guide to this month’s studies

1. Interventions that improve discharge handovers reviewed
2. Duration of in-hospital cardiac resuscitation and survival rates
3. Early sepsis intervention strategies to decrease mortality risk
4. Hypoglycemia linked to increased mortality in critically ill
5. Increased bleeding risk for cardiac patients
6. Hospital-run vs. anesthesiologist-run preoperative clinics
7. Postoperative delirium and cognitive impairment in cardiac patients
8. Benefits of resuming anticoagulants after GI bleeding
9. Preoperative hyponatremia and risk of perioperative mortality

Systematic Review Highlights Several Interventions That Improve Discharge Handovers

Clinical question: Do interventions to improve patient handovers at discharge have positive effects on patient care?

Background: The transition from hospital to primary care is often suboptimal and has been associated with unfavorable outcomes, including hospital readmission, increased healthcare utilization, and adverse drug events post-discharge. This review sought to characterize different types of interventions aimed at improving discharge handovers and to evaluate their effects.

Study design: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Setting: Studies published from January 1990 to March 2011.

Synopsis: Review of published databases identified 36 randomized controlled studies on interventions to improve discharge handovers. Studies were blindly evaluated by two reviewers on quality, interventions, and outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes; thus, statistical analysis was not possible. Most studies evaluated multicomponent interventions and had more than one outcome measure.

Of the 36 studies reviewed, 25 reported statistically significant improvements in outcomes, including reduced hospital utilization and improved continuity of care. Effective interventions included medication reconciliation; structured discharge information (facilitated by electronic resources); multidisciplinary discharge planning; shared involvement in arranging care between inpatient and outpatient physicians; and Web-based access to discharge information by the outpatient provider.

The complexity of the interventions and the heterogeneity of reported results did not allow for firm conclusions to be drawn regarding which specific interventions had the strongest effects.

Bottom line: Interventions that target the quality and safety of handovers between hospital and outpatient providers at discharge can significantly reduce hospital utilization and improve continuity of care.

Citation: Hesselink G, Schoonhoven L, Barach P, et al. Improving patient handovers from hospital to primary care: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:417-428.

Longer Duration of In-Hospital Cardiac Resuscitation Associated with Increased Survival

Clinical question: Are prolonged cardiac resuscitation efforts associated with improved outcomes?

Background: There is little evidence or guidelines on how long to maintain resuscitative efforts during in-hospital cardiac arrest, leading to variation in practice. This study characterized patterns of resuscitation duration and relationship to the return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge.

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: Four hundred thirty-five U.S. hospitals reporting data to the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines: Resuscitation registry.

Synopsis: Using duration of resuscitation in nonsurvivors as a surrogate for the tendency of a facility to perform prolonged efforts, hospitals were divided into quartiles. Overall, of 64,339 patients in the registry, 31,198 (48.5%) had return of circulation and 9,912 (15.4%) survived to discharge. Resuscitative efforts in nonsurvivors ranged from a median of 16 to 25 minutes between the lowest and highest quartiles.

There was a stepwise increase in the likelihood for patients to have return of spontaneous circulation and to survive to discharge between each quartile. Specifically, comparing shortest to longest, there was a significant adjusted odds ratio of 1.12 for both the return of circulation (P<0.0001) and survival to discharge (P=0.021). The survival benefit was most apparent for those with pulseless electrical activity or asystole as initial rhythms, as compared to ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation.

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which meant causality could not be determined. Additionally, the study did not account for the quality of resuscitative efforts (e.g. depth of chest compressions, adherence with guidelines), which might have influenced outcomes. Importantly, the study looked at survival to discharge, but it did not evaluate long-term survival or functional status post-discharge, which might better reflect the success of resuscitation.

Bottom line: Prolonged resuscitative efforts were observed to be associated with increased likelihood of return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge; this data might provide clinical guidance in determining when to stop resuscitation efforts.

Citation: Goldberger ZD, Chan PS, Berg RA, et al. Duration of resuscitation efforts and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: an observational study. Lancet. 2012;380:1473-1481.

Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies Decrease Mortality, Length of Stay, and Cost

Clinical question: For patients with sepsis or septic shock, what is the impact of a real-time comprehensive continuous quality-improvement (QI) initiative on in-hospital mortality, morbidity, and healthcare resource utilization in community and tertiary-care hospitals in the U.S.?

Background: Multiple single-center trials have demonstrated that early sepsis intervention strategies (early goal-directed therapy, resuscitation bundles) improve in-hospital mortality. Little is known about the effectiveness of incorporating these strategies into a real-time continuous QI initiative and implementing interventions across multiple sites simultaneously.

Study design: Pre-post at some sites and concurrent implementation design at other sites.

Setting: Five community and six-tertiary care U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: The GENeralized Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies (GENESIS) project was a CQI initiative that combined several QI concepts with validated early sepsis interventions known as resuscitation bundles (RB). Continuous QI was implemented on patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in both before and after designs (eight hospitals), and in concurrent designs (three hospitals). The control group was comprised of historical controls treated before GENESIS and patients with incomplete implementation of RB, totaling 1,554 patients. The treatment group included patients treated after GENESIS and those with complete RB compliance, totaling 4,801 patients.

Compared with the control group, patients in the treatment group had a 33% decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.63-0.72), an absolute decrease in hospital length of stay (LOS) by 5.1 days (20.7 days vs. 15.6 days, P<0.001) and a $47,923 reduction in total hospital charges (P<0.001). Limitations included the study design (not a prospective randomized trial), and the possibility of other concurrent unmeasured quality initiatives taking place at the study sites, which might have contributed to improved outcomes.

Bottom line: Early sepsis intervention strategies in the form of a comprehensive continuous QI initiative can decrease mortality, hospital LOS, and cost in both tertiary-care and community hospitals.

Citation: Cannon CM, Holthaus CV, Zubrow MT, et al. The GENESIS project (GENeralized Early Sepsis Intervention Strategies): a multicenter quality improvement collaborative. J Intensive Care Med. 2012; Aug 17. doi:10.1177/0885066612453025.

Hypoglycemia Associated with Increased Mortality in the Critically Ill

Clinical question: Is hypoglycemia associated with mortality in critically ill patients?

Background: Initial studies suggested that intensive glucose control reduces mortality in surgical ICU patients and reduces morbidity in medical ICU patients, but further studies have not supported these findings. Recent literature shows conflicting results on the effects of intense glucose control in critically ill patients.

Study design: Post-hoc analysis of the NICE-SUGAR study database.

Setting: ICUs in 42 hospitals in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

Synopsis: The NICE-SUGAR study was a multicenter trial that randomized 6,104 ICU patients to intensive (glucose 80 to 108 mg/dL) or conventional glucose control (≤180 mg/dL). Patients were followed for 90 days or until death, with death being the primary end point. Severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL) was recorded in 6.8% of patients in the intensive glucose control group versus 0.5% in the conventional group. The study showed that intensive glucose control was associated with increased mortality among adult ICU patients.

Using the NICE-SUGAR database, the authors conducted a Cox regression analysis to examine the associations between hypoglycemia and death. A total of 2,714 patients had moderate hypoglycemia (glucose 41 to 70 mg/dL), and 223 patients had severe hypoglycemia. The hazard ratio for mortality was 1.41 (95% CI 1.21-1.62, P<0.001) for patients with moderate hypoglycemia and 2.10 (95% CI 1.59-2.77, P<0.001) for severe hypoglycemia, compared to patients without hypoglycemia.

These findings show a strong association between mortality and hypoglycemia but do not prove causality. Hospitalists caring for ICU patients must be aware that hypoglycemia is associated with mortality and focus on avoiding hypoglycemia. The American Diabetes Association currently recommends a target blood glucose level of 140 to 180 mg/dL for most critically ill patients.

Bottom line: Hypoglycemia (glucose <70 mg/dL) is associated with increased risk of mortality in ICU patients.

Citation: Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, et al. Hypoglycemia and risk of death in critically ill patients. New Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1108-1118.

Increased Bleeding Risk for Cardiac Patients on Multiple Antithrombotic Drugs

Clinical question: Is there an increased risk of bleeding in atrial fibrillation patients treated with multiple antithrombotic agents following acute myocardial infarction (MI) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)?

Background: Current treatment for atrial fibrillation patients with MI or PCI includes vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy to prevent stroke and antiplatelet agents to prevent further coronary events. There are inconsistent findings on the safety and efficacy of combined therapy with VKA, aspirin, and clopidogrel, specifically with regard to bleeding risk.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Nationwide registry in Denmark.

Synopsis: Using the National Patient Registry in Denmark, 11,480 patients with atrial fibrillation who were admitted for MI or PCI were identified. Patients were grouped by medication regimen, including monotherapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, or VKA), dual therapy (dual antiplatelet or VKA+antiplatelet), or triple therapy (VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel). The primary outcome was nonfatal or fatal bleeding within one year.

Patients receiving triple therapy had the highest rate of bleeding, with a crude incidence of 14.2 events per 100 person-years. Patients treated with VKA+aspirin+clopidogel were significantly more likely than those on VKA+antiplatelet (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.04-2.08) or dual antiplatelet (HR 2.20, 95% CI 1.58-3.08) treatment to have a bleeding event within 90 days, and similar trends were seen at 90 to 360 days. There was no significant difference in thromboembolic events among patients on VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel versus VKA+antiplatelet therapy.

Only bleeding events that required hospitalization were recorded, which might underestimate the bleeding risks of these regimens. Additionally, INR levels were not determined, which could impact both bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes.

However, this study does suggest that there are significant bleeding risks among patients treated with triple therapy. Hospitalists should weigh the risks of thromboembolic events with bleeding risks in patients with atrial fibrillation and MI/PCI, and only prescribe VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel with these risks in mind.

Bottom line: Immediate and continued bleeding risk is increased in patients with atrial fibrillation admitted with PCI or MI who are placed on triple antithrombotic therapy with VKA+aspirin+clopidogrel.

Citation: Lamberts M, Olesen JB, Ruwald MH, et al. Bleeding after initiation of multiple antithrombotic drugs, including triple therapy, in atrial fibrillation patients following myocardial infarction and coronary intervention. Circulation. 2012;126:1185-1193.

Hospitalist-Run Preoperative Clinic Improves Outcomes in Complex Surgical Patients

Clinical question: Do hospitalist-run preoperative clinics improve outcomes for medically complex patients undergoing noncardiac surgery compared to traditional anesthesiologist-run preoperative clinics?

Background: Studies of perioperative medical consultation have shown inconsistent effects on quality of care, but preoperative medical consultation has only been evaluated in the immediate preoperative period (one day prior to surgery or less). Little is known about the impact of involving hospitalists earlier in the preoperative period.

Study design: Retrospective, pre-post study.

Setting: Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VAGLAHS).

Synopsis: In July 2004, the VAGLAHS Preoperative Clinic transitioned from being anesthesiologist-run to hospitalist-run. Mid-level providers were trained on preoperative medical assessment, and patients were only evaluated by anesthesia staff on the day of surgery, after they had been deemed medically acceptable for surgery. All patients seen in the clinic from July 2003 to July 2005 were included in the study. Period A included patients evaluated when anesthesia staff supervised the clinic. Period B included patients evaluated during the first year of the hospitalist-run system.

There were 1,101 patients with inpatient surgeries in Period A, and 1,126 patients in Period B. Mean length of stay (LOS) decreased to 5.28 days during the hospitalist-run model from 9.87 days during the anesthesiologist-run model. LOS reductions were most notable in patients with ASA scores of 3 or higher; LOS reductions were not seen in an internal control of surgical patients who were not evaluated in the preoperative clinic. Inpatient mortality was also reduced in Period B compared with Period A, to 4 cases (0.36%) from 14 cases (1.27%) (P=0.0158). Specific processes that led to improved outcomes for patients in Period B could not be identified. The VA study setting might limit the generalizability of the results.

Bottom line: A hospitalist-run preoperative clinic was associated with decreased LOS and inpatient mortality compared with a traditional anesthesiologist-run clinic.

Citation: Vazirani S, Lankarani-Fard A, Lian LJ, Stelzner M, Asch SM. Preoperative processes and outcomes after implementation of a hospitalist-run preoperative clinic. J Hosp Med. 2012 Sep 7. doi:10.1002/jhm.1968.

Delirium after Cardiac Surgery Associated with Prolonged Cognitive Impairment

Clinical question: Is postoperative delirium associated with decreased cognitive function in the first year after cardiac surgery?

Background: In general populations, delirium has been associated with long-term decline in cognitive ability. Delirium and cognitive dysfunction are both common following cardiac surgery, but the effects of postoperative delirium on the trajectory of cognitive function over time is unclear.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Two academic medical centers and a Veterans Administration hospital.

Synopsis: Two hundred twenty-five patients aged 60 or older who were scheduled to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement surgery were included. Patients underwent preoperative assessment cognitive function with the use of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Starting on postoperative Day 2, patients underwent daily assessment for delirium. After discharge, cognitive function was reassessed at months one, six, and 12.

Postoperative delirium occurred in 103 patients (46%). Patients with delirium were older, had higher comorbidity scores, and had lower MMSE scores at baseline. Among the overall study population, adjusted MMSE scores dropped 4.6 points from baseline to postoperative Day 2, then were observed to increase by approximately one point per day during postoperative days 3 to 5 with minimal change thereafter. Patients with delirium had greater decrease in cognitive function in the immediate postoperative period compared to patients without delirium (7.7 points vs. 2.1, P<0.001).

Patients without delirium returned to their baseline cognitive ability by one month postoperatively, while patients who had delirium were still making gains up to six months post-operatively, never returning to baseline level of function by one year. Unmeasured confounders and uncertain sensitivity of the MMSE to detect mild cognitive impairment might limit these findings.

Bottom line: Cognitive function decreases in the immediate postoperative period following cardiac surgery. Compared to patients without delirium, patients with delirium experience more dramatic and prolonged cognitive impairment postoperatively, without returning to their preoperative level of cognitive function at one year.

Citation: Saczynski JS, Marcantonio ER, Quach L, et al. Cognitive trajectories after postoperative delirium. New Engl J Med. 2012;367:30-39.

Benefits of Resuming Anticoagulation after GI Bleed Outweigh Risks for Most Patients

Clinical question: In warfarin-treated patients who have experienced gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, what are the patterns of restarting warfarin therapy and the incidence of thrombosis, recurrent GI bleed, and death in the 90 days following index bleed?

Background: In warfarin-treated patients who experience GI bleeding, warfarin is often temporarily held or permanently discontinued, placing patients at increased risk for developing thromboembolism. Little is known about the risks, benefits, and timing of restarting warfarin in this patient population.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Kaiser Permanente Colorado.

Synopsis: Using clinical and administrative databases, 442 patients who presented with GI bleeding while receiving warfarin therapy were identified. Patients were grouped by whether they resumed warfarin (n=260, including 41 patients in whom anticoagulation was never interrupted), or did not resume warfarin therapy (n=182) in the 90 days following index GI bleed. Patients with prosthetic heart valves or GI bleeding localized to the rectum/anus were more commonly restarted on warfarin, whereas older patients and those in whom the source of bleeding was not identified were less likely to be restarted on warfarin therapy.

Restarting warfarin therapy after index GI bleed was associated with lower risk of thrombosis (HR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.58) and death from any cause (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.62), and it was not associated with a significant increase in risk for recurrent GI bleed (HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.50-3.57).

The authors concluded that for many patients who experience a warfarin-associated GI bleed, the benefits of restarting warfarin therapy outweigh the risks. No conclusions were made regarding the optimal timing of resuming therapy. Limitations included the use of administrative data and inability to determine the potential influence of aspirin use on outcomes.

Bottom line: Resuming warfarin in the 90 days following a warfarin-associated GI bleed is associated with decreased risk of thrombosis and death without increased risk for recurrent GI bleed.

Citation: Witt DM, Delate T, Garcia DA, et al. Risk of thromboembolism, recurrent hemorrhage, and death after warfarin therapy interruption for gastrointestinal tract bleeding. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Sep 12. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.4261.

Preoperative Hyponatremia Associated with Increased Risk for Perioperative Complications and Mortality

Clinical question: Is preoperative hyponatremia an indicator of perioperative morbidity and mortality?

Background: Hyponatremia is a common diagnosis in the hospital setting and is associated with adverse outcomes, even in mild cases. However, it is unclear if this association exists in surgical patients when detected preoperatively.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Academic and community hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP).

Synopsis: A total of 75,423 adult patients with hyponatremia (sodium <135 mEq/L) who were undergoing major surgery were compared to 888,840 patients with normal preoperative sodium levels over a six-year period. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative major coronary events, stroke, wound infection, pneumonia, and length of stay (LOS).

Compared to patients with normal sodium levels, those with preoperative hyponatremia had higher rates of perioperative mortality (5.2% vs. 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.38-1.50), with increased risk that correlated with increasing severity of hyponatremia. Association with postoperative mortality was particularly strong among hyponatremic patients with ASA scores of 1 or 2 and those undergoing nonemergency surgery.

Patients with preoperative hyponatremia were also found to have increased risk for all postoperative complications evaluated, with the exception of stroke. Limitations included the potential for unmeasured confounders and not being able to account for the role of medications used perioperatively. Research is needed to determine whether correcting preoperative hyponatremia lessens the risk of mortality and other postoperative complications.

Bottom line: Among patients undergoing major surgery, preoperative hyponatremia is a predictor of postoperative 30-day mortality and morbidity.

Citation: Leung AA, McAlister FA, Rogers SO, et al. Preoperative hyponatremia and perioperative complications. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1-8.

Clinical question: How helpful is the “gut feeling” that clinicians might have that a child is more ill than they look?

Background: Timely recognition of serious infections in children is difficult but critical to improved outcomes. Numerous studies have examined clinical criteria and laboratory tests to distinguish viral infections from more serious bacterial infections but have demonstrated mixed results. Clinicians’ subjective impressions of patients continue to drive many care patterns, and the relevance of a gut feeling that something is wrong remains unclear.

Study design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Primary-care clinics in Flanders, Belgium.

Synopsis: Nearly 4,000 children 0-16 years of age were evaluated after presentation for acute illness in primary-care settings. Clinical features, overall “clinical impression” (serious illness present or absent), and “gut feelings” (present, absent or unsure) that something was wrong were prospectively recorded. Serious infections were defined as hospital admissions for potential bacterial infections.

The presence of a gut feeling significantly increased the risk of serious illness (likelihood ratio 25.5, 95% confidence interval 7.9 to 82.0) and had a consistently higher specificity than clinical impression alone. The overall sensitivity of the gut feeling in this cohort was 61.9% with a specificity of 97.2%, while the positive predictive value was 10.8% and negative predictive value 99.8%. A history of convulsions and parental concerns were independently strongly associated with a positive gut feeling.

Similar to other clinical and laboratory evaluations designed to detect serious illness, the absence of a gut feeling might be the more useful finding from this study. Limitations of the data include an inability to further delve into what gives rise to a gut feeling in clinical practice as well as a moderate level of variance in the multivariate models. Additionally, only 21 children were ultimately admitted to the hospital, which, in conjunction with the subsequent power limitations, highlights the proverbial difficulty of finding that “needle in the haystack.”

Bottom line: The presence or absence of a gut feeling that something is wrong might be an important component of the history in acute childhood illness.

Citation: Van den Bruel A, Thompson M, Buntinx F, Mant D. Clinicians’ gut feeling about serious infections in children: observational study. BMJ. 2012;345:e6144.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children's Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Clinical question: How helpful is the “gut feeling” that clinicians might have that a child is more ill than they look?

Background: Timely recognition of serious infections in children is difficult but critical to improved outcomes. Numerous studies have examined clinical criteria and laboratory tests to distinguish viral infections from more serious bacterial infections but have demonstrated mixed results. Clinicians’ subjective impressions of patients continue to drive many care patterns, and the relevance of a gut feeling that something is wrong remains unclear.

Study design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Primary-care clinics in Flanders, Belgium.

Synopsis: Nearly 4,000 children 0-16 years of age were evaluated after presentation for acute illness in primary-care settings. Clinical features, overall “clinical impression” (serious illness present or absent), and “gut feelings” (present, absent or unsure) that something was wrong were prospectively recorded. Serious infections were defined as hospital admissions for potential bacterial infections.

The presence of a gut feeling significantly increased the risk of serious illness (likelihood ratio 25.5, 95% confidence interval 7.9 to 82.0) and had a consistently higher specificity than clinical impression alone. The overall sensitivity of the gut feeling in this cohort was 61.9% with a specificity of 97.2%, while the positive predictive value was 10.8% and negative predictive value 99.8%. A history of convulsions and parental concerns were independently strongly associated with a positive gut feeling.

Similar to other clinical and laboratory evaluations designed to detect serious illness, the absence of a gut feeling might be the more useful finding from this study. Limitations of the data include an inability to further delve into what gives rise to a gut feeling in clinical practice as well as a moderate level of variance in the multivariate models. Additionally, only 21 children were ultimately admitted to the hospital, which, in conjunction with the subsequent power limitations, highlights the proverbial difficulty of finding that “needle in the haystack.”

Bottom line: The presence or absence of a gut feeling that something is wrong might be an important component of the history in acute childhood illness.

Citation: Van den Bruel A, Thompson M, Buntinx F, Mant D. Clinicians’ gut feeling about serious infections in children: observational study. BMJ. 2012;345:e6144.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children's Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Clinical question: How helpful is the “gut feeling” that clinicians might have that a child is more ill than they look?

Background: Timely recognition of serious infections in children is difficult but critical to improved outcomes. Numerous studies have examined clinical criteria and laboratory tests to distinguish viral infections from more serious bacterial infections but have demonstrated mixed results. Clinicians’ subjective impressions of patients continue to drive many care patterns, and the relevance of a gut feeling that something is wrong remains unclear.

Study design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Primary-care clinics in Flanders, Belgium.

Synopsis: Nearly 4,000 children 0-16 years of age were evaluated after presentation for acute illness in primary-care settings. Clinical features, overall “clinical impression” (serious illness present or absent), and “gut feelings” (present, absent or unsure) that something was wrong were prospectively recorded. Serious infections were defined as hospital admissions for potential bacterial infections.

The presence of a gut feeling significantly increased the risk of serious illness (likelihood ratio 25.5, 95% confidence interval 7.9 to 82.0) and had a consistently higher specificity than clinical impression alone. The overall sensitivity of the gut feeling in this cohort was 61.9% with a specificity of 97.2%, while the positive predictive value was 10.8% and negative predictive value 99.8%. A history of convulsions and parental concerns were independently strongly associated with a positive gut feeling.

Similar to other clinical and laboratory evaluations designed to detect serious illness, the absence of a gut feeling might be the more useful finding from this study. Limitations of the data include an inability to further delve into what gives rise to a gut feeling in clinical practice as well as a moderate level of variance in the multivariate models. Additionally, only 21 children were ultimately admitted to the hospital, which, in conjunction with the subsequent power limitations, highlights the proverbial difficulty of finding that “needle in the haystack.”

Bottom line: The presence or absence of a gut feeling that something is wrong might be an important component of the history in acute childhood illness.

Citation: Van den Bruel A, Thompson M, Buntinx F, Mant D. Clinicians’ gut feeling about serious infections in children: observational study. BMJ. 2012;345:e6144.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children's Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Case

A generally healthy, 74-year-old man presents with sudden-onset abdominal pain due to acute pancreatitis. Computed tomography (CT) of his abdomen shows pancreatic inflammation and an incidental finding of a 4.5-cm abdominal aortic aneurysm. He had never had any imaging of his abdomen prior to this study and described no prior episodes of abdominal pain.

When should his abdominal aortic aneurysm be treated?

Overview

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal dilation of the abdominal aorta between the diaphragm and the aortic bifurcation of the iliac arteries. An AAA is usually defined as a dilatation with a diameter of >3 cm or 50% greater than the typical diameter. Most AAAs are located in the infrarenal aorta, proximal to the iliac bifurcation.

Population screening programs show a prevalence of AAA of 4% to 8% in men aged 65 to 80 years.¹ AAA prevalence is approximately six times greater in men than women, though the prevalence in women might be increasing.¹ AAA is most common in white men, with black men and those of Asian heritage having lower risk. A combination of genetic predisposition and environmental and physiologic factors lead to initiation and progression of AAAs; family history, male sex, advanced age, and history of smoking are major risk factors.

Mortality after AAA rupture is high. Approximately 62% of patients die prior to hospital arrival.² Of those who undergo emergent AAA surgery, 50% will die.¹

Aortic repair with a prosthetic vascular graft reduces morbidity and mortality from rupture, but the risks of repair are not trivial.²

Review of the Data

Risk of rupture. An AAA should be repaired when the risk of rupture outweighs the risks of surgical repair. Symptomatic aneurysms—such as those causing back or abdominal pain—have a higher risk of rupture than asymptomatic aneurysms. Most AAAs are asymptomatic and, in the absence of imaging, not identified until the time of rupture. Given the significant mortality associated with rupture, there is benefit to intervening on asymptomatic aneurysms before rupture.

The risk of AAA rupture has been studied in patients who either have been unfit for surgical repair or uninterested in intervention. Risk of rupture increases substantially with aneurysm size. Lederle et al estimated a two-year aneurysm rupture risk of 22.1% for AAA with a diameter of 5.0 to 5.9 cm, 18.9% for 6.0 to 6.9 cm, and 43.4% for a diameter ≥7.0 cm.³ In another study of 476 patients, the average risks of rupture in male and female patients with an AAA of 5.0 to 5.9 cm were 1.0% and 3.9% per year, respectively. For male and female patients with ≥6.0 cm AAAs, risks of rupture were 14.1% and 22.3% per year.⁴ Women with AAA have been found to have a higher risk of rupture in all studies in which female patients were included.

Because rupture risk increases with size, predicting the rate of growth is clinically important. Powell et al conducted a systematic review of growth rates of small AAAs.⁵ In 15 studies that examined 7,630 patients, the growth rate for a 3.5-cm aneurysm was estimated at 1.9 mm/year and for a 4.5-cm aneurysm was 3.5 mm/year. Given an exponentially increasing aneurysm diameter, this suggests an elapsed time of 6.2 years for a 3.5-cm aneurysm to grow to 5.5 cm, and 2.3 years for a 4.5-cm AAA to grow to 5.5 cm. This prediction does not account for individual variability in growth rate. Some AAAs grow quickly, others erratically, and others not at all. This growth variability is influenced by individual characteristics including cigarette smoking, sex, age, and other factors.

Medical prevention of progression and rupture. Studies have assessed whether modification of risk factors can delay progression of growth of AAAs. In a small aneurysm trial in the United Kingdom, self-reported smoking status was associated with an incrementally increased growth rate of 0.4 mm per year.⁵ Each year of smoking increases the relative risk of AAA by 4%, and continued smoking leads to more rapid AAA expansion.6 There is no clear relationship between cholesterol levels and AAA expansion rate. Observational studies suggest that aneurysm expansion decreases with statin use, but there is not sufficient evidence to recommend statin therapy for AAA alone.⁶

Many patients with AAA, however, are candidates for statins because of concomitant coronary artery or peripheral vascular disease. Small, randomized controlled trials have shown that macrolides and tetracycline antibiotics might inhibit AAA growth, but prescribing them for this purpose is not currently the standard of care.⁷ Elevated mean blood pressure has been associated with rupture, but there is not good evidence showing delay of progression with treatment of hypertension.⁶ Early observational studies suggested that beta-blocker use would decrease AAA progression, but further evidence has not supported their benefit in slowing progression of size.⁸ Likewise, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors has also shown no growth inhibition.⁷ An ongoing Cochrane review is evaluating evidence for these medical treatments of AAA.⁹

Surgical prevention of rupture. There are two surgical methods of AAA repair: open repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Both involve use of a prosthetic graft to prevent the aneurysm from enlarging. The EVAR procedure typically involves entry at the femoral artery, with use of catheters and guide wires to advance a graft to the desired location and anchor it in place. Because this utilizes an endovascular approach, regional rather than general anesthesia can be used.

Multiple investigators have evaluated for differences in outcomes between the two methods of surgical AAA repair. Studies have shown increased 30-day postoperative mortality with open repair, as well as significantly higher rates of postoperative cardiac, pulmonary, and renal complications. One randomized controlled study found 30-day operative mortality of 1.8% in the EVAR group and 4.3% in the open repair group.¹⁰ However, after a median six-year follow-up of patients after EVAR or open repair, there is no difference in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality.¹⁰ Compared with open repair, the need for long-term surveillance and re-intervention post-EVAR is higher, with endoleak and graft migration the most common complications. This accounts for the loss of early survival advantage in post-EVAR patients. By two years post-operation, complication after repair with either technique is not statistically different. De Bruin et al found that six years after randomization for repair type, cumulative survival rates were 69.9% for patients after open repair and 68.9% with EVAR.¹¹

Studies also have focused on subgroups of patients with a higher operative risk and shorter life expectancy, such as the elderly.¹² A pooled analysis of 13,419 patients aged ≥80 years from six observational studies showed 8.6% immediate mortality after open repair and 2.3% after EVAR (risk difference 6.2%, 95% CI 5.4-7.0%).¹³ Pooled analysis of three longer-term studies showed similar overall survival at three years after EVAR and open repair.¹³ When EVAR is not available, open repair has acceptable short- and long-term survival in patients aged ≥80 years with an AAA at high risk of rupture.¹⁴

Screening. A Cochrane review evaluated the effect of ultrasound screening of asymptomatic AAA on mortality. In 127,891 men and 9,342 women aged 65 to 79, researchers found a significant decrease in mortality in men aged 65 to 79 who were screened (odds ratio 0.6, 95% CI 0.47-0.78) but no benefit to screening of women.15 The current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines recommend one-time ultrasound-guided (USG) screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 who have any history of tobacco use. For men in this age group who have never smoked, the balance between benefits and harms of screening is too close for the USPSTF to make recommendations. Because of the lower prevalence in women, the USPSTF recommends against screening women for AAA.¹⁸

Timing of repair. Early repair of small AAAs (4 cm to 5.5 cm) has no long-term survival benefit compared to ultrasound surveillance without repair.^16,17 Therefore, AAAs <5.5 cm should be followed with regular ultrasound surveillance every six months, with referral to surgery if the diameter reaches 5.5 cm, or grows >1 cm a year. The size at which surgery should be performed might be lower in women, given that their risk of rupture is higher than men. A thoughtful discussion of individual risks should take place in every case, but in many patients, even the elderly, repair of a large asymptomatic AAA is indicated. ⁵

Back to the Case

Our patient should have repeat imaging of his AAA in six months and regular surveillance afterward to monitor for growth every six months. When the AAA is >5.5 cm or if it grows >1 cm a year, he should be evaluated for EVAR or open repair.

Bottom Line

The current USPSTF guidelines recommend one-time ultrasound-guided (USG) screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 with a history of smoking. If an AAA >3 cm is found, the patient should undergo regular USG screening every six months. The AAA should be repaired if >5.5 cm or symptomatic, via either an endoscopic or open approach.

Dr. Best is a hospitalist at University of Washington Medicine at Harborview and associate program director of the internal-medicine residency program at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Carpenter is a fellow in the division of geriatrics at the University of California at San Franscisco.

References

1. Nordon IM, Hinchliffe RJ, Loftus IM, Thompson MM. Pathophysiology and epidemiology of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011;8, 92-102.
2. Ernst CB. Abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(16):1167-1172.
3. Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE, et al. Rupture rate of large abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients refusing or unfit for elective repair. JAMA. 2002;287:2968-2972
4. Brown PM, Zelt DT, Sobolev B. The risk of rupture in untreated aneurysms: the impact of size, gender, and expansion rate. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:280-284.
5. Powell JT, Sweeting MJ, Brown LC, Gotensparre SM, Fowkes FG, Thompson SG. Systematic review and meta-analysis of growth rates of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. British Journal of Surgery. 2011;98:609-618.
6. Brown LC, Powell JT. Risk factors for aneurysm rupture in patients kept under ultrasound surveillance. UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Ann Surg. 1999;230(3):289-297.
7. Baxter BT, Terrin MC, Dalman RL. Medical management of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Circulation. 2008;117:1883-1889.
8. The Propranolol Aneurysm Trial Investigators. Propranolol for small abdominal aortic aneurysms: results of a randomized trial. J Vasc Surg. 2002:35:72-79.
9. Ruhani G, Robertson L, Clarke M. Medical treatment for small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews 2012. Sep 12;9:CD009536. doi: 10.1002/14651858.
10. The United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:1863-1871.
11. De Bruin JL, Baas AF, Buth J, et al. Long-term outcome of open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1881-1889.
12. Jackson RS, Chang DC, Freischlag JA. Comparison of long-term survival after open vs. endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm among Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1621-1628.
13. Biancari F, Catania A, D’Andrea V. Elective endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients aged 80 years and older: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42:571-576.
14. Schermerhorn ML, O’Malley AJ, Jhaveri A, Cotterill P, Pomposelli F, Landon BE. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:464-474.
15. Cosford PA, Leng GC, Tomas J. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD002945. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002945.pub2.
16. Filardo G, Powell JT, Martinez MA, Ballard DJ. Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms. Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 3. Art. No.:CD001835. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001835.pub3.
17. The UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Final 12-year follow-up of surgery versus surveillance in the UK small aneurysm trial. Brit J Surg. 2007;94:702-708.
18. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Recommendation Statement. AHRQ Publication No. 05-0569-A, February 2005.

Case

A generally healthy, 74-year-old man presents with sudden-onset abdominal pain due to acute pancreatitis. Computed tomography (CT) of his abdomen shows pancreatic inflammation and an incidental finding of a 4.5-cm abdominal aortic aneurysm. He had never had any imaging of his abdomen prior to this study and described no prior episodes of abdominal pain.

When should his abdominal aortic aneurysm be treated?

Overview

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal dilation of the abdominal aorta between the diaphragm and the aortic bifurcation of the iliac arteries. An AAA is usually defined as a dilatation with a diameter of >3 cm or 50% greater than the typical diameter. Most AAAs are located in the infrarenal aorta, proximal to the iliac bifurcation.

Population screening programs show a prevalence of AAA of 4% to 8% in men aged 65 to 80 years.¹ AAA prevalence is approximately six times greater in men than women, though the prevalence in women might be increasing.¹ AAA is most common in white men, with black men and those of Asian heritage having lower risk. A combination of genetic predisposition and environmental and physiologic factors lead to initiation and progression of AAAs; family history, male sex, advanced age, and history of smoking are major risk factors.

Mortality after AAA rupture is high. Approximately 62% of patients die prior to hospital arrival.² Of those who undergo emergent AAA surgery, 50% will die.¹

Aortic repair with a prosthetic vascular graft reduces morbidity and mortality from rupture, but the risks of repair are not trivial.²

Review of the Data

Risk of rupture. An AAA should be repaired when the risk of rupture outweighs the risks of surgical repair. Symptomatic aneurysms—such as those causing back or abdominal pain—have a higher risk of rupture than asymptomatic aneurysms. Most AAAs are asymptomatic and, in the absence of imaging, not identified until the time of rupture. Given the significant mortality associated with rupture, there is benefit to intervening on asymptomatic aneurysms before rupture.

The risk of AAA rupture has been studied in patients who either have been unfit for surgical repair or uninterested in intervention. Risk of rupture increases substantially with aneurysm size. Lederle et al estimated a two-year aneurysm rupture risk of 22.1% for AAA with a diameter of 5.0 to 5.9 cm, 18.9% for 6.0 to 6.9 cm, and 43.4% for a diameter ≥7.0 cm.³ In another study of 476 patients, the average risks of rupture in male and female patients with an AAA of 5.0 to 5.9 cm were 1.0% and 3.9% per year, respectively. For male and female patients with ≥6.0 cm AAAs, risks of rupture were 14.1% and 22.3% per year.⁴ Women with AAA have been found to have a higher risk of rupture in all studies in which female patients were included.

Because rupture risk increases with size, predicting the rate of growth is clinically important. Powell et al conducted a systematic review of growth rates of small AAAs.⁵ In 15 studies that examined 7,630 patients, the growth rate for a 3.5-cm aneurysm was estimated at 1.9 mm/year and for a 4.5-cm aneurysm was 3.5 mm/year. Given an exponentially increasing aneurysm diameter, this suggests an elapsed time of 6.2 years for a 3.5-cm aneurysm to grow to 5.5 cm, and 2.3 years for a 4.5-cm AAA to grow to 5.5 cm. This prediction does not account for individual variability in growth rate. Some AAAs grow quickly, others erratically, and others not at all. This growth variability is influenced by individual characteristics including cigarette smoking, sex, age, and other factors.

Medical prevention of progression and rupture. Studies have assessed whether modification of risk factors can delay progression of growth of AAAs. In a small aneurysm trial in the United Kingdom, self-reported smoking status was associated with an incrementally increased growth rate of 0.4 mm per year.⁵ Each year of smoking increases the relative risk of AAA by 4%, and continued smoking leads to more rapid AAA expansion.6 There is no clear relationship between cholesterol levels and AAA expansion rate. Observational studies suggest that aneurysm expansion decreases with statin use, but there is not sufficient evidence to recommend statin therapy for AAA alone.⁶

Many patients with AAA, however, are candidates for statins because of concomitant coronary artery or peripheral vascular disease. Small, randomized controlled trials have shown that macrolides and tetracycline antibiotics might inhibit AAA growth, but prescribing them for this purpose is not currently the standard of care.⁷ Elevated mean blood pressure has been associated with rupture, but there is not good evidence showing delay of progression with treatment of hypertension.⁶ Early observational studies suggested that beta-blocker use would decrease AAA progression, but further evidence has not supported their benefit in slowing progression of size.⁸ Likewise, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors has also shown no growth inhibition.⁷ An ongoing Cochrane review is evaluating evidence for these medical treatments of AAA.⁹

Surgical prevention of rupture. There are two surgical methods of AAA repair: open repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Both involve use of a prosthetic graft to prevent the aneurysm from enlarging. The EVAR procedure typically involves entry at the femoral artery, with use of catheters and guide wires to advance a graft to the desired location and anchor it in place. Because this utilizes an endovascular approach, regional rather than general anesthesia can be used.

Multiple investigators have evaluated for differences in outcomes between the two methods of surgical AAA repair. Studies have shown increased 30-day postoperative mortality with open repair, as well as significantly higher rates of postoperative cardiac, pulmonary, and renal complications. One randomized controlled study found 30-day operative mortality of 1.8% in the EVAR group and 4.3% in the open repair group.¹⁰ However, after a median six-year follow-up of patients after EVAR or open repair, there is no difference in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality.¹⁰ Compared with open repair, the need for long-term surveillance and re-intervention post-EVAR is higher, with endoleak and graft migration the most common complications. This accounts for the loss of early survival advantage in post-EVAR patients. By two years post-operation, complication after repair with either technique is not statistically different. De Bruin et al found that six years after randomization for repair type, cumulative survival rates were 69.9% for patients after open repair and 68.9% with EVAR.¹¹

Studies also have focused on subgroups of patients with a higher operative risk and shorter life expectancy, such as the elderly.¹² A pooled analysis of 13,419 patients aged ≥80 years from six observational studies showed 8.6% immediate mortality after open repair and 2.3% after EVAR (risk difference 6.2%, 95% CI 5.4-7.0%).¹³ Pooled analysis of three longer-term studies showed similar overall survival at three years after EVAR and open repair.¹³ When EVAR is not available, open repair has acceptable short- and long-term survival in patients aged ≥80 years with an AAA at high risk of rupture.¹⁴

Screening. A Cochrane review evaluated the effect of ultrasound screening of asymptomatic AAA on mortality. In 127,891 men and 9,342 women aged 65 to 79, researchers found a significant decrease in mortality in men aged 65 to 79 who were screened (odds ratio 0.6, 95% CI 0.47-0.78) but no benefit to screening of women.15 The current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines recommend one-time ultrasound-guided (USG) screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 who have any history of tobacco use. For men in this age group who have never smoked, the balance between benefits and harms of screening is too close for the USPSTF to make recommendations. Because of the lower prevalence in women, the USPSTF recommends against screening women for AAA.¹⁸

Timing of repair. Early repair of small AAAs (4 cm to 5.5 cm) has no long-term survival benefit compared to ultrasound surveillance without repair.^16,17 Therefore, AAAs <5.5 cm should be followed with regular ultrasound surveillance every six months, with referral to surgery if the diameter reaches 5.5 cm, or grows >1 cm a year. The size at which surgery should be performed might be lower in women, given that their risk of rupture is higher than men. A thoughtful discussion of individual risks should take place in every case, but in many patients, even the elderly, repair of a large asymptomatic AAA is indicated. ⁵

Back to the Case

Our patient should have repeat imaging of his AAA in six months and regular surveillance afterward to monitor for growth every six months. When the AAA is >5.5 cm or if it grows >1 cm a year, he should be evaluated for EVAR or open repair.

Bottom Line

The current USPSTF guidelines recommend one-time ultrasound-guided (USG) screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 with a history of smoking. If an AAA >3 cm is found, the patient should undergo regular USG screening every six months. The AAA should be repaired if >5.5 cm or symptomatic, via either an endoscopic or open approach.

Dr. Best is a hospitalist at University of Washington Medicine at Harborview and associate program director of the internal-medicine residency program at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Carpenter is a fellow in the division of geriatrics at the University of California at San Franscisco.

References

1. Nordon IM, Hinchliffe RJ, Loftus IM, Thompson MM. Pathophysiology and epidemiology of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011;8, 92-102.
2. Ernst CB. Abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(16):1167-1172.
3. Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE, et al. Rupture rate of large abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients refusing or unfit for elective repair. JAMA. 2002;287:2968-2972
4. Brown PM, Zelt DT, Sobolev B. The risk of rupture in untreated aneurysms: the impact of size, gender, and expansion rate. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:280-284.
5. Powell JT, Sweeting MJ, Brown LC, Gotensparre SM, Fowkes FG, Thompson SG. Systematic review and meta-analysis of growth rates of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. British Journal of Surgery. 2011;98:609-618.
6. Brown LC, Powell JT. Risk factors for aneurysm rupture in patients kept under ultrasound surveillance. UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Ann Surg. 1999;230(3):289-297.
7. Baxter BT, Terrin MC, Dalman RL. Medical management of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Circulation. 2008;117:1883-1889.
8. The Propranolol Aneurysm Trial Investigators. Propranolol for small abdominal aortic aneurysms: results of a randomized trial. J Vasc Surg. 2002:35:72-79.
9. Ruhani G, Robertson L, Clarke M. Medical treatment for small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews 2012. Sep 12;9:CD009536. doi: 10.1002/14651858.
10. The United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:1863-1871.
11. De Bruin JL, Baas AF, Buth J, et al. Long-term outcome of open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1881-1889.
12. Jackson RS, Chang DC, Freischlag JA. Comparison of long-term survival after open vs. endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm among Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1621-1628.
13. Biancari F, Catania A, D’Andrea V. Elective endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients aged 80 years and older: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42:571-576.
14. Schermerhorn ML, O’Malley AJ, Jhaveri A, Cotterill P, Pomposelli F, Landon BE. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:464-474.
15. Cosford PA, Leng GC, Tomas J. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD002945. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002945.pub2.
16. Filardo G, Powell JT, Martinez MA, Ballard DJ. Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms. Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 3. Art. No.:CD001835. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001835.pub3.
17. The UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Final 12-year follow-up of surgery versus surveillance in the UK small aneurysm trial. Brit J Surg. 2007;94:702-708.
18. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Recommendation Statement. AHRQ Publication No. 05-0569-A, February 2005.

Case

A generally healthy, 74-year-old man presents with sudden-onset abdominal pain due to acute pancreatitis. Computed tomography (CT) of his abdomen shows pancreatic inflammation and an incidental finding of a 4.5-cm abdominal aortic aneurysm. He had never had any imaging of his abdomen prior to this study and described no prior episodes of abdominal pain.

When should his abdominal aortic aneurysm be treated?

Overview

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is an abnormal dilation of the abdominal aorta between the diaphragm and the aortic bifurcation of the iliac arteries. An AAA is usually defined as a dilatation with a diameter of >3 cm or 50% greater than the typical diameter. Most AAAs are located in the infrarenal aorta, proximal to the iliac bifurcation.

Population screening programs show a prevalence of AAA of 4% to 8% in men aged 65 to 80 years.¹ AAA prevalence is approximately six times greater in men than women, though the prevalence in women might be increasing.¹ AAA is most common in white men, with black men and those of Asian heritage having lower risk. A combination of genetic predisposition and environmental and physiologic factors lead to initiation and progression of AAAs; family history, male sex, advanced age, and history of smoking are major risk factors.

Mortality after AAA rupture is high. Approximately 62% of patients die prior to hospital arrival.² Of those who undergo emergent AAA surgery, 50% will die.¹

Aortic repair with a prosthetic vascular graft reduces morbidity and mortality from rupture, but the risks of repair are not trivial.²

Review of the Data

Risk of rupture. An AAA should be repaired when the risk of rupture outweighs the risks of surgical repair. Symptomatic aneurysms—such as those causing back or abdominal pain—have a higher risk of rupture than asymptomatic aneurysms. Most AAAs are asymptomatic and, in the absence of imaging, not identified until the time of rupture. Given the significant mortality associated with rupture, there is benefit to intervening on asymptomatic aneurysms before rupture.

The risk of AAA rupture has been studied in patients who either have been unfit for surgical repair or uninterested in intervention. Risk of rupture increases substantially with aneurysm size. Lederle et al estimated a two-year aneurysm rupture risk of 22.1% for AAA with a diameter of 5.0 to 5.9 cm, 18.9% for 6.0 to 6.9 cm, and 43.4% for a diameter ≥7.0 cm.³ In another study of 476 patients, the average risks of rupture in male and female patients with an AAA of 5.0 to 5.9 cm were 1.0% and 3.9% per year, respectively. For male and female patients with ≥6.0 cm AAAs, risks of rupture were 14.1% and 22.3% per year.⁴ Women with AAA have been found to have a higher risk of rupture in all studies in which female patients were included.

Because rupture risk increases with size, predicting the rate of growth is clinically important. Powell et al conducted a systematic review of growth rates of small AAAs.⁵ In 15 studies that examined 7,630 patients, the growth rate for a 3.5-cm aneurysm was estimated at 1.9 mm/year and for a 4.5-cm aneurysm was 3.5 mm/year. Given an exponentially increasing aneurysm diameter, this suggests an elapsed time of 6.2 years for a 3.5-cm aneurysm to grow to 5.5 cm, and 2.3 years for a 4.5-cm AAA to grow to 5.5 cm. This prediction does not account for individual variability in growth rate. Some AAAs grow quickly, others erratically, and others not at all. This growth variability is influenced by individual characteristics including cigarette smoking, sex, age, and other factors.

Medical prevention of progression and rupture. Studies have assessed whether modification of risk factors can delay progression of growth of AAAs. In a small aneurysm trial in the United Kingdom, self-reported smoking status was associated with an incrementally increased growth rate of 0.4 mm per year.⁵ Each year of smoking increases the relative risk of AAA by 4%, and continued smoking leads to more rapid AAA expansion.6 There is no clear relationship between cholesterol levels and AAA expansion rate. Observational studies suggest that aneurysm expansion decreases with statin use, but there is not sufficient evidence to recommend statin therapy for AAA alone.⁶

Many patients with AAA, however, are candidates for statins because of concomitant coronary artery or peripheral vascular disease. Small, randomized controlled trials have shown that macrolides and tetracycline antibiotics might inhibit AAA growth, but prescribing them for this purpose is not currently the standard of care.⁷ Elevated mean blood pressure has been associated with rupture, but there is not good evidence showing delay of progression with treatment of hypertension.⁶ Early observational studies suggested that beta-blocker use would decrease AAA progression, but further evidence has not supported their benefit in slowing progression of size.⁸ Likewise, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors has also shown no growth inhibition.⁷ An ongoing Cochrane review is evaluating evidence for these medical treatments of AAA.⁹

Surgical prevention of rupture. There are two surgical methods of AAA repair: open repair and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Both involve use of a prosthetic graft to prevent the aneurysm from enlarging. The EVAR procedure typically involves entry at the femoral artery, with use of catheters and guide wires to advance a graft to the desired location and anchor it in place. Because this utilizes an endovascular approach, regional rather than general anesthesia can be used.

Multiple investigators have evaluated for differences in outcomes between the two methods of surgical AAA repair. Studies have shown increased 30-day postoperative mortality with open repair, as well as significantly higher rates of postoperative cardiac, pulmonary, and renal complications. One randomized controlled study found 30-day operative mortality of 1.8% in the EVAR group and 4.3% in the open repair group.¹⁰ However, after a median six-year follow-up of patients after EVAR or open repair, there is no difference in total mortality or aneurysm-related mortality.¹⁰ Compared with open repair, the need for long-term surveillance and re-intervention post-EVAR is higher, with endoleak and graft migration the most common complications. This accounts for the loss of early survival advantage in post-EVAR patients. By two years post-operation, complication after repair with either technique is not statistically different. De Bruin et al found that six years after randomization for repair type, cumulative survival rates were 69.9% for patients after open repair and 68.9% with EVAR.¹¹

Studies also have focused on subgroups of patients with a higher operative risk and shorter life expectancy, such as the elderly.¹² A pooled analysis of 13,419 patients aged ≥80 years from six observational studies showed 8.6% immediate mortality after open repair and 2.3% after EVAR (risk difference 6.2%, 95% CI 5.4-7.0%).¹³ Pooled analysis of three longer-term studies showed similar overall survival at three years after EVAR and open repair.¹³ When EVAR is not available, open repair has acceptable short- and long-term survival in patients aged ≥80 years with an AAA at high risk of rupture.¹⁴

Screening. A Cochrane review evaluated the effect of ultrasound screening of asymptomatic AAA on mortality. In 127,891 men and 9,342 women aged 65 to 79, researchers found a significant decrease in mortality in men aged 65 to 79 who were screened (odds ratio 0.6, 95% CI 0.47-0.78) but no benefit to screening of women.15 The current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines recommend one-time ultrasound-guided (USG) screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 who have any history of tobacco use. For men in this age group who have never smoked, the balance between benefits and harms of screening is too close for the USPSTF to make recommendations. Because of the lower prevalence in women, the USPSTF recommends against screening women for AAA.¹⁸

Timing of repair. Early repair of small AAAs (4 cm to 5.5 cm) has no long-term survival benefit compared to ultrasound surveillance without repair.^16,17 Therefore, AAAs <5.5 cm should be followed with regular ultrasound surveillance every six months, with referral to surgery if the diameter reaches 5.5 cm, or grows >1 cm a year. The size at which surgery should be performed might be lower in women, given that their risk of rupture is higher than men. A thoughtful discussion of individual risks should take place in every case, but in many patients, even the elderly, repair of a large asymptomatic AAA is indicated. ⁵

Back to the Case

Our patient should have repeat imaging of his AAA in six months and regular surveillance afterward to monitor for growth every six months. When the AAA is >5.5 cm or if it grows >1 cm a year, he should be evaluated for EVAR or open repair.

Bottom Line

The current USPSTF guidelines recommend one-time ultrasound-guided (USG) screening for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 with a history of smoking. If an AAA >3 cm is found, the patient should undergo regular USG screening every six months. The AAA should be repaired if >5.5 cm or symptomatic, via either an endoscopic or open approach.

Dr. Best is a hospitalist at University of Washington Medicine at Harborview and associate program director of the internal-medicine residency program at the University of Washington, Seattle. Dr. Carpenter is a fellow in the division of geriatrics at the University of California at San Franscisco.

References

1. Nordon IM, Hinchliffe RJ, Loftus IM, Thompson MM. Pathophysiology and epidemiology of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011;8, 92-102.
2. Ernst CB. Abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(16):1167-1172.
3. Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE, et al. Rupture rate of large abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients refusing or unfit for elective repair. JAMA. 2002;287:2968-2972
4. Brown PM, Zelt DT, Sobolev B. The risk of rupture in untreated aneurysms: the impact of size, gender, and expansion rate. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:280-284.
5. Powell JT, Sweeting MJ, Brown LC, Gotensparre SM, Fowkes FG, Thompson SG. Systematic review and meta-analysis of growth rates of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. British Journal of Surgery. 2011;98:609-618.
6. Brown LC, Powell JT. Risk factors for aneurysm rupture in patients kept under ultrasound surveillance. UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Ann Surg. 1999;230(3):289-297.
7. Baxter BT, Terrin MC, Dalman RL. Medical management of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Circulation. 2008;117:1883-1889.
8. The Propranolol Aneurysm Trial Investigators. Propranolol for small abdominal aortic aneurysms: results of a randomized trial. J Vasc Surg. 2002:35:72-79.
9. Ruhani G, Robertson L, Clarke M. Medical treatment for small abdominal aortic aneurysms. Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews 2012. Sep 12;9:CD009536. doi: 10.1002/14651858.
10. The United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362:1863-1871.
11. De Bruin JL, Baas AF, Buth J, et al. Long-term outcome of open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1881-1889.
12. Jackson RS, Chang DC, Freischlag JA. Comparison of long-term survival after open vs. endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm among Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1621-1628.
13. Biancari F, Catania A, D’Andrea V. Elective endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in patients aged 80 years and older: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42:571-576.
14. Schermerhorn ML, O’Malley AJ, Jhaveri A, Cotterill P, Pomposelli F, Landon BE. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:464-474.
15. Cosford PA, Leng GC, Tomas J. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD002945. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002945.pub2.
16. Filardo G, Powell JT, Martinez MA, Ballard DJ. Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms. Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 3. Art. No.:CD001835. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001835.pub3.
17. The UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Final 12-year follow-up of surgery versus surveillance in the UK small aneurysm trial. Brit J Surg. 2007;94:702-708.
18. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Recommendation Statement. AHRQ Publication No. 05-0569-A, February 2005.

Dr. Hospitalist

Position Paper Did Not Address Family Practice Physicians in ICU

I just finished reading “The Critical-Care Debate” article in The Hospitalist’s October issue. I was quite interested in getting further follow-up and comments regarding family practice physicians’ role in critical care. Now that some hospitalist programs are utilized as “intensivists,” what are SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s (SCCM) opinions of family practitioners who are hospitalists acting in this manner? The TH article says that internal-medicine programs are insufficient for preparing internists; what are SHM and SCCM’s positions and opinions of family practice physicians being utilized as intensivists?

—Ray Nowaczyk, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Boy, and we thought this issue was politically charged before you asked that question. From my reading of the position paper (J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364) cited in the article, the role of family practice physicians is only alluded to, and not addressed except by its absence. The main thrust of the paper focuses specifically on physicians trained in internal medicine (IM) and how they could become “qualified” to provide ICU care. A few items stand out:

1. The baseline assumption is that these would be IM-trained physicians, not family practice physicians.
2. The requirements to entry wouldinclude: a) completion of IM residency; b) three years’ clinical practice as a hospitalist; and c) enrollment in the ABIM Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine Maintenance of Certification process, which, by definition, requires board certification in internal medicine.

Judging by the vocal backlash from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), I imagine that even getting consensus on the points above required some fairly heavy lifting. Addressing the issue of family practitioners in HM likely was not a topic they felt could gain traction

You are absolutely correct, though, in that plenty of family practitioners practice full time as adult hospitalists (and are doing a fine job). As the paper notes, it is estimated that 6% to 8% of all hospitalists are familypractice- trained. Unfortunately, there is very little objective documentation that will allow them to demonstrate their clinical quality other than direct clinical practice or observation. There is no formal “bridge” to cross for a family practice physician wanting to receive certification in hospital medicine; this currently can only happen through ABIM.

At the same time, I do not believe that the absence of formal certification disqualifies any family practitioner from practicing quality medicine in the hospital. In fact, in my market, there are some fantastic family practice hospitalists who have been in practice in a busy, urban, Level I hospital for more than 10 years. They clearly have the clinical experience and skills that would vastly outweigh those of almost any new graduate of an internal-medicine program. Can they prove it? Not today.

I think it’s a similar discussion with IM-trained hospitalists providing ICU care. I have colleagues who actively seek to accept and care for ICU patients when it comes time for admissions, and these physicians spend much more time in direct patient care in the ICU than even some of our intensivists. Can they prove their skills? Not today. However, as noted in the Leapfrog data, at this point, only 4% of ICUs have 24/7 dedicated intensivists, so who are we kidding? We need hospitalists to provide competent ICU care. Whether we provide a pathway for objective recognition or not, it is still going to happen. It sure would be nice if it happened in a sensible way with input from the stakeholders—just as was suggested in the position paper.

Here’s a little anecdote: Many years ago, there was an ortho PA (we’ll call him Jimmy John) in our hospital, but when you called his pager number, which he also gave out routinely to patients, the message said, “You’ve reached the pager of Doctor John.” He was no doctor. Well, one of us finally asked him about it, and he replied, with a straight face: “Oh, I used to be a vet.” OK.

The point is, we all need to recognize our own skills and limitations and be able to communicate those same skills and limitations to others, especially to patients, honestly. Since honesty has its limits, then independent objective measurement is a useful adjunct. Just look at your office walls.

Dr. Hospitalist

Position Paper Did Not Address Family Practice Physicians in ICU

I just finished reading “The Critical-Care Debate” article in The Hospitalist’s October issue. I was quite interested in getting further follow-up and comments regarding family practice physicians’ role in critical care. Now that some hospitalist programs are utilized as “intensivists,” what are SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s (SCCM) opinions of family practitioners who are hospitalists acting in this manner? The TH article says that internal-medicine programs are insufficient for preparing internists; what are SHM and SCCM’s positions and opinions of family practice physicians being utilized as intensivists?

—Ray Nowaczyk, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Boy, and we thought this issue was politically charged before you asked that question. From my reading of the position paper (J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364) cited in the article, the role of family practice physicians is only alluded to, and not addressed except by its absence. The main thrust of the paper focuses specifically on physicians trained in internal medicine (IM) and how they could become “qualified” to provide ICU care. A few items stand out:

1. The baseline assumption is that these would be IM-trained physicians, not family practice physicians.
2. The requirements to entry wouldinclude: a) completion of IM residency; b) three years’ clinical practice as a hospitalist; and c) enrollment in the ABIM Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine Maintenance of Certification process, which, by definition, requires board certification in internal medicine.

Judging by the vocal backlash from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), I imagine that even getting consensus on the points above required some fairly heavy lifting. Addressing the issue of family practitioners in HM likely was not a topic they felt could gain traction

You are absolutely correct, though, in that plenty of family practitioners practice full time as adult hospitalists (and are doing a fine job). As the paper notes, it is estimated that 6% to 8% of all hospitalists are familypractice- trained. Unfortunately, there is very little objective documentation that will allow them to demonstrate their clinical quality other than direct clinical practice or observation. There is no formal “bridge” to cross for a family practice physician wanting to receive certification in hospital medicine; this currently can only happen through ABIM.

At the same time, I do not believe that the absence of formal certification disqualifies any family practitioner from practicing quality medicine in the hospital. In fact, in my market, there are some fantastic family practice hospitalists who have been in practice in a busy, urban, Level I hospital for more than 10 years. They clearly have the clinical experience and skills that would vastly outweigh those of almost any new graduate of an internal-medicine program. Can they prove it? Not today.

I think it’s a similar discussion with IM-trained hospitalists providing ICU care. I have colleagues who actively seek to accept and care for ICU patients when it comes time for admissions, and these physicians spend much more time in direct patient care in the ICU than even some of our intensivists. Can they prove their skills? Not today. However, as noted in the Leapfrog data, at this point, only 4% of ICUs have 24/7 dedicated intensivists, so who are we kidding? We need hospitalists to provide competent ICU care. Whether we provide a pathway for objective recognition or not, it is still going to happen. It sure would be nice if it happened in a sensible way with input from the stakeholders—just as was suggested in the position paper.

Here’s a little anecdote: Many years ago, there was an ortho PA (we’ll call him Jimmy John) in our hospital, but when you called his pager number, which he also gave out routinely to patients, the message said, “You’ve reached the pager of Doctor John.” He was no doctor. Well, one of us finally asked him about it, and he replied, with a straight face: “Oh, I used to be a vet.” OK.

The point is, we all need to recognize our own skills and limitations and be able to communicate those same skills and limitations to others, especially to patients, honestly. Since honesty has its limits, then independent objective measurement is a useful adjunct. Just look at your office walls.

Dr. Hospitalist

Position Paper Did Not Address Family Practice Physicians in ICU

I just finished reading “The Critical-Care Debate” article in The Hospitalist’s October issue. I was quite interested in getting further follow-up and comments regarding family practice physicians’ role in critical care. Now that some hospitalist programs are utilized as “intensivists,” what are SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s (SCCM) opinions of family practitioners who are hospitalists acting in this manner? The TH article says that internal-medicine programs are insufficient for preparing internists; what are SHM and SCCM’s positions and opinions of family practice physicians being utilized as intensivists?

—Ray Nowaczyk, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Boy, and we thought this issue was politically charged before you asked that question. From my reading of the position paper (J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364) cited in the article, the role of family practice physicians is only alluded to, and not addressed except by its absence. The main thrust of the paper focuses specifically on physicians trained in internal medicine (IM) and how they could become “qualified” to provide ICU care. A few items stand out:

1. The baseline assumption is that these would be IM-trained physicians, not family practice physicians.
2. The requirements to entry wouldinclude: a) completion of IM residency; b) three years’ clinical practice as a hospitalist; and c) enrollment in the ABIM Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine Maintenance of Certification process, which, by definition, requires board certification in internal medicine.

Judging by the vocal backlash from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), I imagine that even getting consensus on the points above required some fairly heavy lifting. Addressing the issue of family practitioners in HM likely was not a topic they felt could gain traction

You are absolutely correct, though, in that plenty of family practitioners practice full time as adult hospitalists (and are doing a fine job). As the paper notes, it is estimated that 6% to 8% of all hospitalists are familypractice- trained. Unfortunately, there is very little objective documentation that will allow them to demonstrate their clinical quality other than direct clinical practice or observation. There is no formal “bridge” to cross for a family practice physician wanting to receive certification in hospital medicine; this currently can only happen through ABIM.

At the same time, I do not believe that the absence of formal certification disqualifies any family practitioner from practicing quality medicine in the hospital. In fact, in my market, there are some fantastic family practice hospitalists who have been in practice in a busy, urban, Level I hospital for more than 10 years. They clearly have the clinical experience and skills that would vastly outweigh those of almost any new graduate of an internal-medicine program. Can they prove it? Not today.

I think it’s a similar discussion with IM-trained hospitalists providing ICU care. I have colleagues who actively seek to accept and care for ICU patients when it comes time for admissions, and these physicians spend much more time in direct patient care in the ICU than even some of our intensivists. Can they prove their skills? Not today. However, as noted in the Leapfrog data, at this point, only 4% of ICUs have 24/7 dedicated intensivists, so who are we kidding? We need hospitalists to provide competent ICU care. Whether we provide a pathway for objective recognition or not, it is still going to happen. It sure would be nice if it happened in a sensible way with input from the stakeholders—just as was suggested in the position paper.

Here’s a little anecdote: Many years ago, there was an ortho PA (we’ll call him Jimmy John) in our hospital, but when you called his pager number, which he also gave out routinely to patients, the message said, “You’ve reached the pager of Doctor John.” He was no doctor. Well, one of us finally asked him about it, and he replied, with a straight face: “Oh, I used to be a vet.” OK.

The point is, we all need to recognize our own skills and limitations and be able to communicate those same skills and limitations to others, especially to patients, honestly. Since honesty has its limits, then independent objective measurement is a useful adjunct. Just look at your office walls.

Electronic decision support significantly improves VTE prophylaxis and hospital-acquired VTE rates, according to a new study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

The report, "Improving Hospital Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis With Electronic Decision Report," saw overall medical service prophylaxis rise to 82.1% from 61.9% (P<0.001) and pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis increase to 74.5% from 59% (P<0.001).

"Healthcare leaders talk about information technology (IT) as a means toward effecting improvements in quality and patient safety and, most of the time, they view that and discuss that in terms of the actual IT system being implemented," says lead author Rohit Bhalla, MD, MPH, associate professor of clinical medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. "What our intervention really got to was once you've implemented an IT system ... how can it be modified, vis-à-vis decision support, so that it provides an even better result than you get with the product that comes out of the box."

Tailoring a health IT system to improve outcomes requires interdisciplinary work that includes quality officers, physicians, IT staff, and programmers. Hospitalist and fellow author Jason Adelman, MD, MS, patient safety officer at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, N.Y., where the study was conducted, says that the research can help generate future buy-in from physicians who don't value electronic decision support tools.

It can "ease the swallowing of the bitter pill to know that it really makes a difference," Dr. Adelman says. "Don't be up in arms when you're forced to do something a little bit extra, because it really works."

Visit our website for more information about health information technology.

Electronic decision support significantly improves VTE prophylaxis and hospital-acquired VTE rates, according to a new study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

The report, "Improving Hospital Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis With Electronic Decision Report," saw overall medical service prophylaxis rise to 82.1% from 61.9% (P<0.001) and pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis increase to 74.5% from 59% (P<0.001).

"Healthcare leaders talk about information technology (IT) as a means toward effecting improvements in quality and patient safety and, most of the time, they view that and discuss that in terms of the actual IT system being implemented," says lead author Rohit Bhalla, MD, MPH, associate professor of clinical medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. "What our intervention really got to was once you've implemented an IT system ... how can it be modified, vis-à-vis decision support, so that it provides an even better result than you get with the product that comes out of the box."

Tailoring a health IT system to improve outcomes requires interdisciplinary work that includes quality officers, physicians, IT staff, and programmers. Hospitalist and fellow author Jason Adelman, MD, MS, patient safety officer at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, N.Y., where the study was conducted, says that the research can help generate future buy-in from physicians who don't value electronic decision support tools.

It can "ease the swallowing of the bitter pill to know that it really makes a difference," Dr. Adelman says. "Don't be up in arms when you're forced to do something a little bit extra, because it really works."

Visit our website for more information about health information technology.

Electronic decision support significantly improves VTE prophylaxis and hospital-acquired VTE rates, according to a new study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.

The report, "Improving Hospital Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis With Electronic Decision Report," saw overall medical service prophylaxis rise to 82.1% from 61.9% (P<0.001) and pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis increase to 74.5% from 59% (P<0.001).

"Healthcare leaders talk about information technology (IT) as a means toward effecting improvements in quality and patient safety and, most of the time, they view that and discuss that in terms of the actual IT system being implemented," says lead author Rohit Bhalla, MD, MPH, associate professor of clinical medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. "What our intervention really got to was once you've implemented an IT system ... how can it be modified, vis-à-vis decision support, so that it provides an even better result than you get with the product that comes out of the box."

Tailoring a health IT system to improve outcomes requires interdisciplinary work that includes quality officers, physicians, IT staff, and programmers. Hospitalist and fellow author Jason Adelman, MD, MS, patient safety officer at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, N.Y., where the study was conducted, says that the research can help generate future buy-in from physicians who don't value electronic decision support tools.

It can "ease the swallowing of the bitter pill to know that it really makes a difference," Dr. Adelman says. "Don't be up in arms when you're forced to do something a little bit extra, because it really works."

Visit our website for more information about health information technology.

Applying the HM model to specialties that can dedicate themselves to managing inpatients could improve care efficiency, says the coauthor of a new report from the American Hospital Association's (AHA) Physician Leadership Forum.

The 20-page report, "Creating the Hospital of the Future: The Implications for Hospital-Focused Physician Practice [PDF]," codified a daylong summit of hospitalist leaders and hospital administrators following the annual Health Forum/AHA Leadership Summit last July in San Francisco. SHM helped organize the meeting, which focused on the growing role and importance of "hyphenated hospitalists."

"With the hospitalist movement, it's critical that there is coordination between the inpatient and the outpatient world … but also inpatient-wise, there should be some coordination of services between the various specialties that are dedicated to the hospital," says John Combes, MD, AHA senior vice president. "We have an opportunity here, as more and more subspecialties develop hospital-based and hospital-focused practices, to construct it right."

Dr. Combes says the model is not applicable to all specialties, but early adoption by fields including OBGYN, orthopedics, neurology, and surgery is a good sign. Hospitalist could look at forming large, multispecialty groups to bring all hospital-focused programs under one proverbial roof. "So there's not only coordination at the hospital level, but also at the group level," he adds.

The continued growth of specialty hospitalists might hinge on whether research shows that the approach improves patient outcomes.

"The jury is out on that right now," Dr. Combes says. "As hospitalists get better at defining what their role is within the inpatient setting—particularly around care coordination, care improvement, efficiency, reduction of unnecessary procedures and testing—we'll be able to document more value."

Visit our website for more information about hospital-based medical practices.

Applying the HM model to specialties that can dedicate themselves to managing inpatients could improve care efficiency, says the coauthor of a new report from the American Hospital Association's (AHA) Physician Leadership Forum.

The 20-page report, "Creating the Hospital of the Future: The Implications for Hospital-Focused Physician Practice [PDF]," codified a daylong summit of hospitalist leaders and hospital administrators following the annual Health Forum/AHA Leadership Summit last July in San Francisco. SHM helped organize the meeting, which focused on the growing role and importance of "hyphenated hospitalists."

"With the hospitalist movement, it's critical that there is coordination between the inpatient and the outpatient world … but also inpatient-wise, there should be some coordination of services between the various specialties that are dedicated to the hospital," says John Combes, MD, AHA senior vice president. "We have an opportunity here, as more and more subspecialties develop hospital-based and hospital-focused practices, to construct it right."

Dr. Combes says the model is not applicable to all specialties, but early adoption by fields including OBGYN, orthopedics, neurology, and surgery is a good sign. Hospitalist could look at forming large, multispecialty groups to bring all hospital-focused programs under one proverbial roof. "So there's not only coordination at the hospital level, but also at the group level," he adds.

The continued growth of specialty hospitalists might hinge on whether research shows that the approach improves patient outcomes.

"The jury is out on that right now," Dr. Combes says. "As hospitalists get better at defining what their role is within the inpatient setting—particularly around care coordination, care improvement, efficiency, reduction of unnecessary procedures and testing—we'll be able to document more value."

Visit our website for more information about hospital-based medical practices.

Applying the HM model to specialties that can dedicate themselves to managing inpatients could improve care efficiency, says the coauthor of a new report from the American Hospital Association's (AHA) Physician Leadership Forum.

The 20-page report, "Creating the Hospital of the Future: The Implications for Hospital-Focused Physician Practice [PDF]," codified a daylong summit of hospitalist leaders and hospital administrators following the annual Health Forum/AHA Leadership Summit last July in San Francisco. SHM helped organize the meeting, which focused on the growing role and importance of "hyphenated hospitalists."

"With the hospitalist movement, it's critical that there is coordination between the inpatient and the outpatient world … but also inpatient-wise, there should be some coordination of services between the various specialties that are dedicated to the hospital," says John Combes, MD, AHA senior vice president. "We have an opportunity here, as more and more subspecialties develop hospital-based and hospital-focused practices, to construct it right."

Dr. Combes says the model is not applicable to all specialties, but early adoption by fields including OBGYN, orthopedics, neurology, and surgery is a good sign. Hospitalist could look at forming large, multispecialty groups to bring all hospital-focused programs under one proverbial roof. "So there's not only coordination at the hospital level, but also at the group level," he adds.

The continued growth of specialty hospitalists might hinge on whether research shows that the approach improves patient outcomes.

"The jury is out on that right now," Dr. Combes says. "As hospitalists get better at defining what their role is within the inpatient setting—particularly around care coordination, care improvement, efficiency, reduction of unnecessary procedures and testing—we'll be able to document more value."

Visit our website for more information about hospital-based medical practices.

Listen to Robert Bessler, CEO of Sound Physicians, discuss the importance of locum agencies.

Listen to Brent Bormaster, of StaffCare, discuss expectations for filling an open hospitalist position and what to look for in a locum agency.

Listen to Robert Bessler, CEO of Sound Physicians, discuss the importance of locum agencies.

Listen to Brent Bormaster, of StaffCare, discuss expectations for filling an open hospitalist position and what to look for in a locum agency.

Listen to Robert Bessler, CEO of Sound Physicians, discuss the importance of locum agencies.

Listen to Brent Bormaster, of StaffCare, discuss expectations for filling an open hospitalist position and what to look for in a locum agency.