Vic Hasselblad

CONTEXT: Pulmonary artery catheters (PACs) have been used to guide therapy in multiple settings, but recent studies have raised concerns that PACs may lead to increased mortality in hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether PAC use is safe and improves clinical outcomes in patients hospitalized with severe symptomatic and recurrent heart failure. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Evaluation Study of Congestive Heart Failure and Pulmonary Artery Catheterization Effectiveness (ESCAPE) was a randomized controlled trial of 433 patients at 26 sites conducted from January 18, 2000, to November 17, 2003. Patients were assigned to receive therapy guided by clinical assessment and a PAC or clinical assessment alone. The target in both groups was resolution of clinical congestion, with additional PAC targets of a pulmonary capillary wedge pressure of 15 mm Hg and a right atrial pressure of 8 mm Hg. Medications were not specified, but inotrope use was explicitly discouraged. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was days alive out of the hospital during the first 6 months, with secondary end points of exercise, quality of life, biochemical, and echocardiographic changes. RESULTS: Severity of illness was reflected by the following values: average left ventricular ejection fraction, 19%; systolic blood pressure, 106 mm Hg; sodium level, 137 mEq/L; urea nitrogen, 35 mg/dL (12.40 mmol/L); and creatinine, 1.5 mg/dL (132.6 micromol/L). Therapy in both groups led to substantial reduction in symptoms, jugular venous pressure, and edema. Use of the PAC did not significantly affect the primary end point of days alive and out of the hospital during the first 6 months (133 days vs 135 days; hazard ratio [HR], 1.00 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.82-1.21]; P = .99), mortality (43 patients [10%] vs 38 patients [9%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.78-2.03]; P = .35), or the number of days hospitalized (8.7 vs 8.3; HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.86-1.27]; P = .67). In-hospital adverse events were more common among patients in the PAC group (47 [21.9%] vs 25 [11.5%]; P = .04). There were no deaths related to PAC use, and no difference for in-hospital plus 30-day mortality (10 [4.7%] vs 11 [5.0%]; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.38-2.22]; P = .97). Exercise and quality of life end points improved in both groups with a trend toward greater improvement with the PAC, which reached significance for the time trade-off at all time points after randomization. CONCLUSIONS: Therapy to reduce volume overload during hospitalization for heart failure led to marked improvement in signs and symptoms of elevated filling pressures with or without the PAC. Addition of the PAC to careful clinical assessment increased anticipated adverse events, but did not affect overall mortality and hospitalization. Future trials should test noninvasive assessments with specific treatment strategies that could be used to better tailor therapy for both survival time and survival quality as valued by patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing emphasis on the role of clinical decision-support systems (CDSSs) for improving care and reducing costs, evidence to support widespread use is lacking. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of CDSSs on clinical outcomes, health care processes, workload and efficiency, patient satisfaction, cost, and provider use and implementation. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through January 2011. STUDY SELECTION: Investigators independently screened reports to identify randomized trials published in English of electronic CDSSs that were implemented in clinical settings; used by providers to aid decision making at the point of care; and reported clinical, health care process, workload, relationship-centered, economic, or provider use outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Investigators extracted data about study design, participant characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: 148 randomized, controlled trials were included. A total of 128 (86%) assessed health care process measures, 29 (20%) assessed clinical outcomes, and 22 (15%) measured costs. Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs improved health care process measures related to performing preventive services (n= 25; odds ratio [OR], 1.42 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.58]), ordering clinical studies (n= 20; OR, 1.72 [CI, 1.47 to 2.00]), and prescribing therapies (n= 46; OR, 1.57 [CI, 1.35 to 1.82]). Few studies measured potential unintended consequences or adverse effects. LIMITATIONS: Studies were heterogeneous in interventions, populations, settings, and outcomes. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be excluded. CONCLUSION: Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs are effective at improving health care process measures across diverse settings, but evidence for clinical, economic, workload, and efficiency outcomes remains sparse. This review expands knowledge in the field by demonstrating the benefits of CDSSs outside of experienced academic centers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

BACKGROUND: Nesiritide is approved in the United States for early relief of dyspnea in patients with acute heart failure. Previous meta-analyses have raised questions regarding renal toxicity and the mortality associated with this agent. METHODS: We randomly assigned 7141 patients who were hospitalized with acute heart failure to receive either nesiritide or placebo for 24 to 168 hours in addition to standard care. Coprimary end points were the change in dyspnea at 6 and 24 hours, as measured on a 7-point Likert scale, and the composite end point of rehospitalization for heart failure or death within 30 days. RESULTS: Patients randomly assigned to nesiritide, as compared with those assigned to placebo, more frequently reported markedly or moderately improved dyspnea at 6 hours (44.5% vs. 42.1%, P=0.03) and 24 hours (68.2% vs. 66.1%, P=0.007), but the prespecified level for significance (P≤0.005 for both assessments or P≤0.0025 for either) was not met. The rate of rehospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause within 30 days was 9.4% in the nesiritide group versus 10.1% in the placebo group (absolute difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.7; P=0.31). There were no significant differences in rates of death from any cause at 30 days (3.6% with nesiritide vs. 4.0% with placebo; absolute difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 0.5) or rates of worsening renal function, defined by more than a 25% decrease in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (31.4% vs. 29.5%; odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.21; P=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Nesiritide was not associated with an increase or a decrease in the rate of death and rehospitalization and had a small, nonsignificant effect on dyspnea when used in combination with other therapies. It was not associated with a worsening of renal function, but it was associated with an increase in rates of hypotension. On the basis of these results, nesiritide cannot be recommended for routine use in the broad population of patients with acute heart failure. (Funded by Scios; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00475852.).

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether bridging anticoagulation is necessary for patients with atrial fibrillation who need an interruption in warfarin treatment for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure. We hypothesized that forgoing bridging anticoagulation would be noninferior to bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of perioperative arterial thromboembolism and would be superior to bridging with respect to major bleeding. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which, after perioperative interruption of warfarin therapy, patients were randomly assigned to receive bridging anticoagulation therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (100 IU of dalteparin per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo administered subcutaneously twice daily, from 3 days before the procedure until 24 hours before the procedure and then for 5 to 10 days after the procedure. Warfarin treatment was stopped 5 days before the procedure and was resumed within 24 hours after the procedure. Follow-up of patients continued for 30 days after the procedure. The primary outcomes were arterial thromboembolism (stroke, systemic embolism, or transient ischemic attack) and major bleeding. RESULTS: In total, 1884 patients were enrolled, with 950 assigned to receive no bridging therapy and 934 assigned to receive bridging therapy. The incidence of arterial thromboembolism was 0.4% in the no-bridging group and 0.3% in the bridging group (risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 0.8; P=0.01 for noninferiority). The incidence of major bleeding was 1.3% in the no-bridging group and 3.2% in the bridging group (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.78; P=0.005 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation who had warfarin treatment interrupted for an elective operation or other elective invasive procedure, forgoing bridging anticoagulation was noninferior to perioperative bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention of arterial thromboembolism and decreased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health; BRIDGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00786474.).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of conventional and new methods of Papanicolaou (Pap) testing when used to detect cervical cancer and its precursors. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search of English-language literature through October 1999 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, other computerized databases, and hand searching. STUDY SELECTION: All studies that compared Pap testing (conventional methods, computer screening or rescreening, or monolayer cytology) with a concurrent reference standard (histologic examination, colposcopy, or cytology). DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently reviewed selection criteria and completed 2 x 2 tables for each study. DATA SYNTHESIS: 94 studies of the conventional Pap test and three studies of monolayer cytology met inclusion criteria. No studies of computerized screening were included. Data were organized by cytologic and histologic thresholds used to define disease. For conventional Pap tests, estimates of sensitivity and specificity varied greatly in individual studies. Methodologic quality and frequency of histologic abnormalities also varied greatly between studies. In the 12 studies with the least biased estimates, sensitivity ranged from 30% to 87% and specificity ranged from 86% to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Insufficient high-quality data exist to estimate test operating characteristics of new cytologic methods for cervical screening. Future studies of these technologies should apply adequate reference standards. Most studies of the conventional Pap test are severely biased: The best estimates suggest that it is only moderately accurate and does not achieve concurrently high sensitivity and specificity. Cost-effectiveness models of cervical cancer screening should use more conservative estimates of Pap test sensitivity.