Search

Purpose New onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in critically ill patients has been associated with increased short-term mortality. Analyses that do not take into account the time-varying nature of NOAF can underestimate its association with hospital outcomes. We investigated the prognostic association of NOAF with hospital outcomes using competing risks methods. Materials and methods We undertook a retrospective cohort study in three general adult intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK from June 2008 to December 2015. We excluded patients with known prior atrial fibrillation or an arrhythmia within four hours of ICU admission. To account for the effect of NOAF on the rate of death per unit time and the rate of discharge alive per unit time we calculated subdistribution hazard ratios (SDHRs). Results Of 7541 patients that fulfilled our inclusion criteria, 831 (11.0%) developed NOAF during their ICU admission. NOAF was associated with an increased duration of hospital stay (CSHR 0.68 (95% CI 0.63–0.73)) and an increased rate of in-hospital death per unit time (CSHR 1.57 (95% CI 1.37–1.1.81)). This resulted in a strong prognostic association with dying in hospital (adjusted SDHR 2.04 (1.79–2.32)). NOAF lasting over 30 min was associated with increased hospital mortality. Conclusions Using robust methods we demonstrate a stronger prognostic association between NOAF and hospital outcomes than previously reported.

Purpose We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the long-term outcomes of patients who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) during an intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Methods We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 2000 to 2022. We included studies of adults based in general ICUs that evaluated long-term outcomes (at least 30 days after hospital discharge) of NOAF. We excluded studies involving patients with a history of atrial fibrillation (AF). We performed risk of bias assessment of the included studies based on a modified Newcastle Ottawa score (NOS). We extracted summary data for long-term outcomes. Where the outcome was reported in three or more studies we pooled effect sizes. Results We screened 2206 studies and included 15 studies reporting data from 561,797 patients. Pooled analysis of 4 studies using a random effects model revealed an association between NOAF acquired in an ICU and 90-day mortality (including ICU and hospital mortality) (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12–2.08). We also found an association between NOAF and 1-year mortality from 7 studies (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.65–1.96), which remained when analysing 1-year mortality in hospital survivors (RR 1.72 (95% CI 1.49–1.98). Conclusions In patients who develop NOAF in an ICU, both 90-day and 1-year mortality are increased in comparison to those who do not develop NOAF. Current evidence suggests an increased risk of thromboembolic events after hospital discharge in patients who develop NOAF in an ICU.

Objectives The Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART) was designed to compare 10-year survival in bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery grafts. The intention-to-treat analysis has showed comparable outcomes between the 2 groups but an explanatory analysis suggested that those receiving 2 or more arterial grafts had better survival. Whether the exclusive use of arterial grafts provide further benefit is unclear. Methods We performed an exploratory analysis of the ART based on conduits actually received (as-treated principle). From ART cohort, only patients receiving at least 3 grafts were included. The final population consisted of 1084, 1010, and 390 patients in the single arterial graft (SAG) group, in the multiple arterial graft (MAG) group (2 or more arterial grafts with additional saphenous veins) and total arterial graft (TAG) group (3 or more arterial grafts only) respectively. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used for comparison. Results When compared with the SAG group, there was a significant trend toward a reduction of 10-year mortality in the MAG and TAG group (test for trend P = .02). The TAG group was associated with the lowest risk of late mortality (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.96; P = .03) and with a significant risk reduction of the composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke and repeat revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94; P = .02). Conclusions When compared with SAG, both MAG and TAG represent valuable strategies to improve clinical outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting but TAG can potentially provide further benefit.

Summary Background The prevalence of malignant pleural effusion is increasing worldwide, but prognostic biomarkers to plan treatment and to understand the underlying mechanisms of disease progression remain unidentified. The PROMISE study was designed with the objectives to discover, validate, and prospectively assess biomarkers of survival and pleurodesis response in malignant pleural effusion and build a score that predicts survival. Methods In this multicohort study, we used five separate and independent datasets from randomised controlled trials to investigate potential biomarkers of survival and pleurodesis. Mass spectrometry-based discovery was used to investigate pleural fluid samples for differential protein expression in patients from the discovery group with different survival and pleurodesis outcomes. Clinical, radiological, and biological variables were entered into least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression to build a model that predicts 3-month mortality. We evaluated the model using internal and external validation. Findings 17 biomarker candidates of survival and seven of pleurodesis were identified in the discovery dataset. Three independent datasets (n=502) were used for biomarker validation. All pleurodesis biomarkers failed, and gelsolin, macrophage migration inhibitory factor, versican, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 1 (TIMP1) emerged as accurate predictors of survival. Eight variables (haemoglobin, C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, cancer type, pleural fluid TIMP1 concentrations, and previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy) were validated and used to develop a survival score. Internal validation with bootstrap resampling and external validation with 162 patients from two independent datasets showed good discrimination (C statistic values of 0·78 [95% CI 0·72–0·83] for internal validation and 0·89 [0·84–0·93] for external validation of the clinical PROMISE score). Interpretation To our knowledge, the PROMISE score is the first prospectively validated prognostic model for malignant pleural effusion that combines biological and clinical parameters to accurately estimate 3-month mortality. It is a robust, clinically relevant prognostic score that can be applied immediately, provide important information on patient prognosis, and guide the selection of appropriate management strategies. Funding European Respiratory Society, Medical Research Funding-University of Oxford, Slater & Gordon Research Fund, and Oxfordshire Health Services Research Committee Research Grants.

IntroductionMonitoring vital signs in hospital is an important part of safe patient care. However, there are no robust estimates of the workload it generates for nursing staff. This makes it difficult to plan adequate staffing to ensure current monitoring protocols can be delivered.ObjectiveTo estimate the time taken to measure and record one set of patient’s vital signs observations; and to identify factors associated with time to measure and record one set of patient’s vital signs observations.MethodsWe undertook a time-and-motion study of 16 acute medical or surgical wards across four hospitals in England. One hospital recorded vital signs on paper, while three recorded measurements on electronic devices. Two trained observers followed a standard operating procedure to record the time taken to measure and record vital sign observations. We used mixed-effects models to estimate the mean time using whole observation rounds, which included preparation time, or time spent taking observations at the bedside. We tested whether our estimates were influenced by nurse, ward and hospital factors.ResultsAfter excluding non-vital signs related interruptions, dividing the length of an observation round by the number of observations in that round yielded an estimated time per observation set of 5 minutes and 1 second (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 4:39-5:24). If interruptions within the round were included, the estimated time was 6:26 (95% CI = 6:01-6:50). If only time taking each patient’s observations at the bedside was considered, after excluding non-vital signs related interruptions the estimated time was 3:45 (95% CI = 3:32-3:58). We found no substantial differences by hospital, ward or nurse characteristics, despite different systems for recording observations being used across the hospitals.DiscussionThe time taken to observe and record a patient’s vital signs is considerable, so changes to recommended observation frequency could have major workload implications. Variation in estimates derived from previous studies may, in part, arise from a lack of clarity about what was included in the reported times. We found no evidence that nurses save time when using electronic vital signs recording, or that the grade of staff taking the observation influenced the time taken.ConclusionsTaking and recording vital signs observations is time consuming and the impact of interruptions and preparation away from the bedside is considerable. When considering the nursing workload around vital signs observations, no assumption of relative efficiency should be made if different technologies or staff groups are deployed.

BackgroundThe Arterial Revascularization Trial has been designed to answer the question whether the use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries can improve 10-year outcomes when compared with single internal thoracic arteries. In the Arterial Revascularization Trial, a significant proportion of patients initially allocated to bilateral internal thoracic arteries received other conduit strategies. We sought to investigate the incidence and clinical implication of bilateral internal thoracic artery graft conversion in the Arterial Revascularization Trial.MethodsAmong patients enrolled in the Arterial Revascularization Trial (n = 3102), we excluded those allocated to single internal thoracic arteries (n = 1554), those who did not undergo surgery (n = 16), and those who underwent operation but withdrew after randomization (n = 7). Propensity score matching was used to compare converted versus nonconverted bilateral internal thoracic artery groups.ResultsA total of 1525 patients were operated with the intention to receive bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting. Of those, 233 (15.3%) were converted to other conduit selection strategies. Incidence of conversion largely varied across 131 participating surgeons (from 0% to 100%). The most common reason for bilateral internal thoracic artery graft conversion was the evidence of at least 1 internal thoracic artery that was not suitable, which was reported in 77 cases. Patients with intraoperative bilateral internal thoracic artery graft conversion received a lower number of grafts (2.95 ± 0.84 vs 3.21 ± 0.74; P ConclusionsThe incidence of intraoperative bilateral internal thoracic artery graft conversion is not infrequent. Bilateral internal thoracic artery graft conversion is not associated with increased operative morbidity, but its effect on late outcomes remains uncertain.

Background Neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer disease (AD) cause significant distress and present a complex clinical challenge for treatment. Pharmacological treatment options are limited to antipsychotics, which carry extensive safety issues. There is emerging evidence to support the potential benefits of memantine, currently licensed for moderate to severe AD, in the prophylaxis of neuropsychiatric symptoms. Methods The MAIN-AD study is a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled withdrawal trial comparing memantine with antipsychotics for the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms over 24 weeks. A total of 199 people with probable AD living in care homes already receiving an antipsychotic were randomized to receive either memantine or to continue an antipsychotic. The primary outcomes were function (Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale [BADLS]) and agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory [CMAI]). Secondary outcomes were Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and mortality. Results There was no significant difference between groups on the BADLS or CMAI. At 24 weeks, there was a nonsignificant adjusted difference in favor of memantine on the BADLS of 0.23 (95% CI –1.80–2.27; P = .82) and in favor of antipsychotic on the CMAI of 0.09 (95% CI –0.35–8.53; P = .07). Although there were no significant differences in total NPI, there were 5.01 (95% CI –1.68–11.70; P = .05) and 3.63 (95% CI –1.40–8.67; P = .16) point advantages favoring antipsychotics at weeks 12 and 24, respectively. In addition, in an exploratory analysis, individuals allocated to antipsychotics were significantly less likely to experience relapse of neuropsychiatric symptoms at all time points. The group receiving memantine had a nonsignificant 1.3-point advantage on the MMSE at 24 weeks. Discussion This study indicates no benefits for memantine in the long-term treatment and prophylaxis of clinically significant neuropsychiatric symptoms. The results did indicate some benefits for antipsychotic medications in reducing the relapse of neuropsychiatric symptoms, but this must be balanced against increased mortality risk.

a Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK b Department of Cellular Pathology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK c Division of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Head and Neck Surgery Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, Oxford, UK d Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK