Evaluation of the impact of nursing clinics in the rheumatology services

Nursing clinics in rheumatology (NCRs) are organisational care models that provide care centred within the scope of a nurse’s abilities. To analyse the impact of NCR in the rheumatology services, national multicenter observational prospective cohort studied 1-year follow-up, comparing patients attending rheumatology services with and without NCR. NCR was defined by the presence of: (1) office itself; (2) at least one dedicated nurse; and (3) its own appointment schedule. Variables included were (baseline, 6 and 12 months): (a) test to evaluate clinical activity of the disease, research and training, infrastructure of unit and resources of NCR and (b) tests to evaluate socio-demographics, work productivity (WPAI), use of services and treatments and quality of life. A total of 393 rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis patients were included: 181 NCR and 212 not NCR, corresponding to 39 units, 21 with NCR and 18 without NCR (age 53 + 11.8 vs 56 + 13.5 years). Statistically significant differences were found in patients attended in sites without NCR, at some of the visits (baseline, 6 or 12 months), for the following parameters: higher CRP level (5.9 mg/l ± 8.3 vs 4.8 mg/l ± 7.8; p < 0.005), global disease evaluation by the patient (3.6 ± 2.3 vs 3.1 ± 2.4), physician (2.9 ± 2.1 vs 2.3 ± 2.1; p < 0.05), use of primary care consultations (2.7 ± 5.4 vs 1.4 ± 2.3; p < 0.001) and worse work productivity. The presence of NCR in the rheumatology services contributes to improve some clinical outcomes, a lower frequency of primary care consultations and better work productivity of patients with rheumatic diseases.

Efficacy and safety of out-of-hospital intravenous metoprolol administration in anterior ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction: insights from the METOCARD-CNIC trial

We seek to examine the efficacy and safety of prereperfusion emergency medical services (EMS)–administered intravenous metoprolol in anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing eventual primary angioplasty. This is a prespecified subgroup analysis of the Effect of Metoprolol in Cardioprotection During an Acute Myocardial Infarction trial population, who all eventually received oral metoprolol within 12 to 24 hours. We studied patients receiving intravenous metoprolol by EMS and compared them with others treated by EMS but not receiving intravenous metoprolol. Outcomes included infarct size and left ventricular ejection fraction on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 1 week, and safety by measuring the incidence of the predefined combined endpoint (composite of death, malignant ventricular arrhythmias, advanced atrioventricular block, cardiogenic shock, or reinfarction) within the first 24 hours. From the total population of the trial (N=270), 147 patients (54%) were recruited during out-of-hospital assistance and transferred to the primary angioplasty center (74 intravenous metoprolol and 73 controls). Infarct size was smaller in patients receiving intravenous metoprolol compared with controls (23.4 [SD 15.0] versus 34.0 [SD 23.7] g; adjusted difference –11.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] –18.6 to –4.3). Left ventricular ejection fraction was higher in the intravenous metoprolol group (48.1% [SD 8.4%] versus 43.1% [SD 10.2%]; adjusted difference 5.0; 95% CI 1.6 to 8.4). Metoprolol administration did not increase the incidence of the prespecified safety combined endpoint: 6.8% versus 17.8% in controls (risk difference –11.1; 95% CI –21.5 to –0.6). Out-of-hospital administration of intravenous metoprolol by EMS within 4.5 hours of symptom onset in our subjects reduced infarct size and improved left ventricular ejection fraction with no excess of adverse events during the first 24 hours.