Search

BackgroundGuidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms, adopting the higher arm readings for diagnosis and management. Data to support this recommendation are lacking. We evaluated associations of higher and lower arm systolic BPs with diagnostic and treatment thresholds, and prognosis in hypertension, using data from the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference-Individual Participant Data Collaboration.MethodsOne-stage multivariable Cox regression models, stratified by study, were used to examine associations of higher or lower reading arm BPs with cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events, in individual participant data meta-analyses pooled from 23 cohorts. Cardiovascular events were modelled for Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores. Model fit was compared throughout using Akaike information criteria. Proportions reclassified across guideline recommended intervention thresholds were also compared.ResultsWe analyzed 53 172 participants: mean age 60 years; 48% female. Higher arm BP, compared with lower arm, reclassified 12% of participants at either 130 or 140 mm Hg systolic BP thresholds (both P

Systolic interarm differences in blood pressure have been associated with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease. We undertook individual participant data meta-analyses to (1) quantify independent associations of systolic interarm difference with mortality and cardiovascular events; (2) develop and validate prognostic models incorporating interarm difference, and (3) determine whether interarm difference remains associated with risk after adjustment for common cardiovascular risk scores. We searched for studies recording bilateral blood pressure and outcomes, established agreements with collaborating authors, and created a single international dataset: the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference - Individual Participant Data (INTERPRESS-IPD) Collaboration. Data were merged from 24 studies (53 827 participants). Systolic interarm difference was associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: continuous hazard ratios 1.05 (95% CI, 1.02-1.08) and 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.11), respectively, per 5 mm Hg systolic interarm difference. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality increased with interarm difference magnitude from a ≥5 mm Hg threshold (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.01-1.14]). Systolic interarm differences per 5 mm Hg were associated with cardiovascular events in people without preexisting disease, after adjustment for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.08]), Framingham (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.01-1.08]), or QRISK cardiovascular disease risk algorithm version 2 (QRISK2) (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.06-1.18]) cardiovascular risk scores. Our findings confirm that systolic interarm difference is associated with increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events. Blood pressure should be measured in both arms during cardiovascular assessment. A systolic interarm difference of 10 mm Hg is proposed as the upper limit of normal. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42015031227.

Abstract Background Quality Improvement Interventions require significant financial investments, and therefore demand careful consideration in their design in order to maximize potential benefits. In this correspondence we present the methodological approach of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention aiming to improve quality of care in primary care, properly tailored for a country such as Cyprus where general practice is currently seeking recognition. Methods Our methodological approach was focused on the design of an open label, community-based intervention controlled trial using all patients from two urban and two rural public primary care centers diagnosed with hypertension and type II diabetes mellitus. The design of our intervention was grounded on a strong theoretical framework that included the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, and the Chronic Care Model, which synthesize evidence-based system changes in accordance with the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action. The primary outcome measure was improvement in the quality of care for two chronic diseases evaluated through specific clinical indicators, as well as the patient satisfaction assessed by the EUROPEP questionnaire and additional personal interviews. Results We designed a multifaceted quality improvement intervention model, supported by a varying degree of scientific evidence, tailored to local needs and specific country characteristics. Overall, the main components of the intervention were the development and adoption of an electronic medical record and the introduction of clinical guidelines for the management of the targeted chronic diseases facilitated by the necessary model of organizational changes. Conclusion Health planners and policy makers need to be aware of the potential use of certain theoretical models and applied methodology as well as inexpensive tools that may be suitably tailored to the local needs, in order to effectively design quality improvement interventions in primary care settings.

Abstract Background Many patients at high risk of cardiovascular diseases are managed and monitored in general practice. Recommendations for cardiovascular risk management, including lifestyle change, are clearly described in the Dutch national guideline. Although lifestyle interventions, such as advice on diet, physical exercise, smoking and alcohol, have moderate, but potentially relevant effects in these patients, adherence to lifestyle advice in general practice is not optimal. The IMPALA study intends to improve adherence to lifestyle advice by involving patients in decision making on cardiovascular prevention by nurse-led clinics. The aim of this paper is to describe the design and methods of a study to evaluate an intervention aimed at involving patients in cardiovascular risk management. Methods A cluster-randomised controlled trial in 20 general practices, 10 practices in the intervention arm and 10 in the control arm, starting on October 2005. A total of 720 patients without existing cardiovascular diseases but eligible for cardiovascular risk assessment will be recruited. In both arms, the general practitioners and nurses will be trained to apply the national guideline for cardiovascular risk management. Nurses in the intervention arm will receive an extended training in risk assessment, risk communication, the use of a decision aid and adapted motivational interviewing. This communication technique will be used to support the shared decision-making process about risk reduction. The intervention comprises 2 consultations and 1 follow-up telephone call. The nurses in the control arm will give usual care after the risk estimation, according to the national guideline. Primary outcome measures are self-reported adherence to lifestyle advice and drug treatment. Secondary outcome measures are the patients' perception of risk and their motivation to change their behaviour. The measurements will take place at baseline and after 12 and 52 weeks. Clinical endpoints will not be measured, but the absolute 10-year risk of cardiovascular events will be estimated for each patient from medical records at baseline and after 1 year. Discussion The combined use of risk communication, a decision aid and motivational interviewing to enhance patient involvement in decision making is an innovative aspect of the intervention. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51556722

Purpose: Diagnostic prediction models such as the Wells rule can be used for safely ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE) when it is suspected. A physician's own probability estimate ("gestalt"), however, is commonly used instead. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of both approaches in primary care.Methods: Family physicians estimated the probability of PE on a scale of 0% to 100% (gestalt) and calculated the Wells rule score in 598 patients with suspected PE who were thereafter referred to secondary care for definitive testing. We compared the discriminative ability (c statistic) of both approaches. Next, we stratified patients into PE risk categories. For gestalt, a probability of less than 20% plus a negative point-of-care d-dimer test indicated low risk; for the Wells rule, we used a score of 4 or lower plus a negative d-dimer test. We compared sensitivity, specificity, efficiency (percentage of low-risk patients in total cohort), and failure rate (percentage of patients having PE within the low-risk category).Results: With 3 months of follow-up, 73 patients (12%) were confirmed to have venous thromboembolism (a surrogate for PE at baseline). The c statistic was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.83) for gestalt and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75-0.86) for the Wells rule. Gestalt missed 2 out of 152 low-risk patients (failure rate = 1.3%; 95% CI, 0.2%-4.7%) with an efficiency of 25% (95% CI, 22%-29%); the Wells rule missed 4 out of 272 low-risk patients (failure rate = 1.5%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.7%) with an efficiency of 45% (95% CI, 41%-50%).Conclusions: Combined with d-dimer testing, both gestalt using a cutoff of less than 20% and the Wells rule using a score of 4 or lower are safe for ruling out PE in primary care. The Wells rule is more efficient, however, and PE can be ruled out in a larger proportion of suspected cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study on the comparison between the Wells rule and a new clinical decision rule for primary care patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT). According to the article, the new clinical decision rule has been proposed because the Wells rule is not sufficient to rule out DVT. However, suspected DVT can safely be ruled out using either the 2 rules in combination with a point-of-care D-dimer test.

Background: In our region (Eastern South Limburg, The Netherlands) an open access echocardiography service started in 2002. It was the first service of this kind in The Netherlands. Our study aims were: (1) to evaluate demand for the service, participation, indications, echocardiography outcomes, and management by the general practitioner (GP); (2) to analyse changes in indications and outcomes over the years. Methods: (1) Data from GP request forms, echocardiography reports and a retrospective GP questionnaire on management (response rate 83%) of 625 consecutive patients (Dec. 2002 - March 2007) were analysed crosssectionally. (2) For the analysis of changes over the years, data from GP request forms and echocardiography reports of the first and last 250 patients that visited the service between Dec. 2002 and Feb. 2008 (n = 1001) were compared. Results: The echocardiography service was used by 81% of the regional GPs. On average, a GP referred one patient per year to the service. Intended indications for the service were dyspnoea (32%), cardiac murmur (59%), and peripheral oedema (17%). Of the other indications (22%), one-third was for evaluation of suspected left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Expected outcomes were left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) (43%, predominantly diastolic) and valve disease (25%). We also found a high proportion of LVH (50%). Only 24% of all echocardiograms showed no relevant disease. The GP followed the cardiologist's advice to refer the patient for further evaluation in 71%. In recent patients, more echocardiography requests were done for 'cardiac murmur' and 'other' indications, but less for 'dyspnoea'. The proportions of patients with LVD, LVH and valve disease decreased and the proportion of patients with no relevant disease increased. The number of advices by the cardiologists increased. Conclusion: Overall, GPs used the open access echocardiography service efficiently (i.e. with a high chance of finding relevant pathology), but efficiency decreased slightly over the years. To meet the needs of the GPs, indications might be widened with 'suspicion LVH'. Further specification of the indications for open access echocardiography - by defining a stepwise diagnostic approach including ECG and (NT-pro)BNP - might improve the service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Up to 90% of patients referred for ultrasonography with suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT) of the leg do not have the disease. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficiency of using a clinical decision rule that includes a point-of-care d-dimer assay at initial presentation in primary care to exclude DVT. Design: A prospective management study. Setting: Approximately 300 primary care practices in 3 regions of the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Maastricht, and Utrecht). Patients: 1028 consecutive patients with clinically suspected DVT. Intervention: Patients were managed on the basis of the result of the clinical decision rule, which included a d-dimer result. Patients with a score of 3 or less were not referred for ultrasonography and received no anticoagulant treatment; patients with a score of 4 or more were referred for ultrasonography. Measurements: The primary outcome was symptomatic, objectively confirmed, venous thromboembolism during 3-month follow-up. Results: The mean age of the 1028 study patients was 58 years, and 37% of patients were men. A valid score was obtained in 1002 patients (98%). In 500 patients (49%), with a score of 3 or less, 7 developed venous thromboembolism within 3 months (incidence, 1.4% [95% CI, 0.6% to 2.9%]). A total of 502 patients (49%) had a score of 4 or more; 3 did not have ultrasonography. Ultrasonography showed DVT in 125 patients (25%), for an overall prevalence in evaluable patients of 13% (125 of 1002). Of the 374 patients who had normal ultrasonography results, 4 developed venous thromboembolism within 3 months (1.1% [CI, 0.3% to 2.7%]). Limitation: The study lacked a randomized design and relied on clinical follow-up to detect missed thrombotic disease. Conclusion: A diagnostic management strategy in primary care by using a simple clinical decision rule and a point-of-care d-dimer assay reduces the need for referral to secondary care of patients with clinically suspected DVT by almost 50% and is associated with a low risk for subsequent venous thromboembolic events. Funding: The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent guidelines recommend assessment and treatment of the overall risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) through management of multiple risk factors in patients at high absolute risk. The aim of our study was to assess the level of cardiovascular risk in patients with known risk factors for CVD by applying the SCORE risk function and to study the implications of European guidelines on the use of treatment and goal attainment for blood pressure (BP) and lipids in the primary care of Cyprus. Methods: Retrospective chart review of 1101 randomly selected patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2), or hypertension or hyperlipidemia in four primary care health centres. The SCORE risk function for high-risk regions was used to calculate 10-year risk of cardiovascular fatal event. Most recent values of BP and lipids were used to assess goal attainment to international standards. Most updated medications lists were used to compare proportions of current with recommended antihypertensive and lipid-lowering drug (LLD) users according to European guidelines. Results: Implementation of the SCORE risk model labelled overall 39.7% (53.6% of men, 31.3% of women) of the study population as high risk individuals (CVD, DM2 or SCORE ≥5%). The SCORE risk chart was not applicable in 563 patients (51.1%) due to missing data in the patient records, mostly on smoking habits. The LDL-C goal was achieved in 28.6%, 19.5% and 20.9% of patients with established CVD, DM2 (no CVD) and SCORE ≥5%, respectively. BP targets were achieved in 55.4%, 5.6% and 41.9% respectively for the above groups. There was under prescription of antihypertensive drugs, LLD and aspirin for all three high risk groups. Conclusion: This study demonstrated suboptimal control and under-treatment of patients with cardiovascular risk factors in the primary care in Cyprus. Improvement of documentation of clinical information in the medical records as well as GPs training for implementation and adherence to clinical practice guidelines are potential areas for further discussion and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]