20 Nov 10
Posted in Anesthesia, Quality measure, Safety at 0:20 by Laci
By J Birkmeyer
N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1963-1965
Long standard in the safety-conscious aviation industry, checklists are now being promoted aggressively in the medical literature and popular press. Almost all U.S. hospitals mandate simple preoperative “time-outs” to minimize the risk of egregious mistakes, such as operating on the wrong site or the wrong patient. Recently, however, many hospitals have started implementing more comprehensive checklist procedures for the operating room, aimed at increasing compliance with practices known to reduce complications and enhancing teamwork. Last year, a large international study supported by the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that such checklists cut surgical morbidity and mortality almost in half.
Permalink
19 Nov 10
Posted in Anesthesia, Quality measure, Safety at 22:19 by Laci
By E de Vries, H Prins, R Crolla, A den Outer, G van Andel, S van Helden, W Schlack, A van Putten et al for the SURPASS Collaborative Group
NEJM 2010; 363:1928-1937
Adverse events in patients who have undergone surgery constitute a large proportion of iatrogenic illnesses. Most surgical safety interventions have focused on the operating room. Since more than half of all surgical errors occur outside the operating room, it is likely that a more substantial improvement in outcomes can be achieved by targeting the entire surgical pathway.
Methods
We examined the effects on patient outcomes of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary surgical safety checklist, including items such as medication, marking of the operative side, and use of postoperative instructions. The checklist was implemented in six hospitals with high standards of care. All complications occurring during admission were documented prospectively. We compared the rate of complications during a baseline period of 3 months with the rate during a 3-month period after implementation of the checklist, while accounting for potential confounders. Similar data were collected from a control group of five hospitals.
Results
In a comparison of 3760 patients observed before implementation of the checklist with 3820 patients observed after implementation, the total number of complications per 100 patients decreased from 27.3 (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.9 to 28.7) to 16.7 (95% CI, 15.6 to 17.9), for an absolute risk reduction of 10.6 (95% CI, 8.7 to 12.4). The proportion of patients with one or more complications decreased from 15.4% to 10.6% (P<0.001). In-hospital mortality decreased from 1.5% (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.0) to 0.8% (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.1), for an absolute risk reduction of 0.7 percentage points (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.2). Outcomes did not change in the control hospitals.
Conclusions
Implementation of this comprehensive checklist was associated with a reduction in surgical complications and mortality in hospitals with a high standard of care.
Permalink
08 Nov 10
Posted in Coronary artery disease at 2:22 by Laci
By C Cannon, R Harrington, S James, D Ardissino, R Becker, H Emanuelsson et al for the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) investigators
Lancet 2010;375:283-93
Variation in and irreversibility of platelet inhibition with clopidogrel has led to controversy about its optimum dose and timing of administration in patients with acute coronary syndromes. We compared ticagrelor, a more potent reversible P2Y12 inhibitor with clopidogrel in such patients.
Methods
At randomisation, an invasive strategy was planned for 13 408 (72.0%) of 18 624 patients hospitalised for acute coronary syndromes (with or without ST elevation). In a double-blind, double-dummy study, patients were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to ticagrelor and placebo (180 mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice a day), or to clopidogrel and placebo (300-600 mg loading dose or continuation with maintenance dose followed by 75 mg per day) for 6-12 months. All patients were given aspirin. The primary composite endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00391872.
Findings
6732 patients were assigned to ticagrelor and 6676 to clopidogrel. The primary composite endpoint occurred in fewer patients in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (569 [event rate at 360 days 9.0%] vs 668 [10.7%], hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94; p=0.0025). There was no difference between clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups in the rates of total major bleeding (691 [11.6%] vs 689 [11.5%], 0.99 [0.89-1.10]; p=0.8803) or severe bleeding, as defined according to the Global Use of Strategies To Open occluded coronary arteries, (198 [3.2%] vs 185 [2.9%], 0.91 [0.74-1.12]; p=0.3785).
Interpretation
Ticagrelor seems to be a better option than clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom an early invasive strategy is planned.
Permalink
04 Nov 10
Posted in Coronary artery disease at 0:02 by Laci
By L Wallentin, R Becker, A Budaj, C Cannon et al, for the PLATO Investigators
NEJM 2009; 361:1045-1057
Ticagrelor is an oral, reversible, direct-acting inhibitor of the adenosine diphosphate receptor P2Y12 that has a more rapid onset and more pronounced platelet inhibition than clopidogrel.
Methods
In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter) and clopidogrel (300-to-600-mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter) for the prevention of cardiovascular events in 18,624 patients admitted to the hospital with an acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation.
Results
At 12 months, the primary end point–a composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke–had occurred in 9.8% of patients receiving ticagrelor as compared with 11.7% of those receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.92; P<0.001). Predefined hierarchical testing of secondary end points showed significant differences in the rates of other composite end points, as well as myocardial infarction alone (5.8% in the ticagrelor group vs. 6.9% in the clopidogrel group, P=0.005) and death from vascular causes (4.0% vs. 5.1%, P=0.001) but not stroke alone (1.5% vs. 1.3%, P=0.22). The rate of death from any cause was also reduced with ticagrelor (4.5%, vs. 5.9% with clopidogrel; P<0.001). No significant difference in the rates of major bleeding was found between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups (11.6% and 11.2%, respectively; P=0.43), but ticagrelor was associated with a higher rate of major bleeding not related to coronary-artery bypass grafting (4.5% vs. 3.8%, P=0.03), including more instances of fatal intracranial bleeding and fewer of fatal bleeding of other types.
Conclusions
In patients who have an acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation, treatment with ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke without an increase in the rate of overall major bleeding but with an increase in the rate of non-procedure-related bleeding
Permalink