Treatment intensification and risk factor control: toward more clinically relevant quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of pharmacotherapy in persons with poorly controlled chronic conditions has been proposed as a clinically meaningful process measure of quality. OBJECTIVE: To validate measures of treatment intensification by evaluating their associations with subsequent control in hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus across 35 medical facility populations in Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. DESIGN: Hierarchical analyses of associations of improvements in facility-level treatment intensification rates from 2001 to 2003 with patient-level risk factor levels at the end of 2003. PATIENTS: Members (515,072 and 626,130; age >20 years) with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes mellitus in 2001 and 2003, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment intensification for each risk factor defined as an increase in number of drug classes prescribed, of dosage for at least 1 drug, or switching to a drug from another class within 3 months of observed poor risk factor control. RESULTS: Facility-level improvements in treatment intensification rates between 2001 and 2003 were strongly associated with greater likelihood of being in control at the end of 2003 (P < or = 0.05 for each risk factor) after adjustment for patient- and facility-level covariates. Compared with facility rankings based solely on control, addition of percentages of poorly controlled patients who received treatment intensification changed 2003 rankings substantially: 14%, 51%, and 29% of the facilities changed ranks by 5 or more positions for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification is tightly linked to improved control. Thus, it deserves consideration as a process measure for motivating quality improvement and possibly for measuring clinical performance.

Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality after acute pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) requires medical expertise, diagnostic testing, and therapies that may not be available consistently throughout the entire week. We sought to assess whether associations exist between weekday or weekend admission and mortality and length of hospital stay for patients hospitalized with PE. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated patients discharged with a primary diagnosis of PE from 186 acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania (January 2000 to November 2002). We used random-effect logistic models to study the association between weekend admission and 30-day mortality and used discrete survival models to study the association between weekend admission and time to hospital discharge, adjusting for hospital (region, size, and teaching status) and patient factors (race, insurance, severity of illness, and use of thrombolytic therapy). Among 15 531 patient discharges with PE, 3286 patients (21.2%) had been admitted on a weekend. Patients admitted on weekends had a higher unadjusted 30-day mortality rate (11.1% versus 8.8%) than patients admitted on weekdays, with no difference in length of stay. Patients admitted on weekends had significantly greater adjusted odds of dying (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.34) than patients admitted on weekdays. The higher mortality among patients hospitalized on weekends was driven by the increased mortality rate among the most severely ill patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PE who are admitted on weekends have a significantly higher short-term mortality than patients admitted on weekdays. Quality-improvement efforts should aim to ensure a consistent approach to the management of PE 7 days a week.

Physicians' estimates of the 10 year cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients: an evaluation in primary care physicians in training.

To evaluate how young physicians in training perceive their patients' cardiovascular risk based on the medical charts and their clinical judgment. Cross sectional observational study. University outpatient clinic, Lausanne, Switzerland. Two hundred hypertensive patients and 50 non-hypertensive patients with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. Comparison of the absolute 10-year cardiovascular risk calculated by a computer program based on the Framingham score and adapted for physicians by the WHO/ISH with the perceived risk as assessed clinically by the physicians. Physicians underestimated the 10-year cardiovascular risk of their patients compared to that calculated with the Framingham score. Concordance between methods was 39% for hypertensive patients and 30% for non-hypertensive patients. Underestimation of cardiovascular risks for hypertensive patients was related to the fact they had a stabilized systolic blood pressure under 140 mm Hg (OR = 2.1 [1.1; 4.1]). These data show that young physicians in training often have an incorrect perception of the cardiovascular risk of their patients with a tendency to underestimate the risk. However, the calculated risk could also be slightly overestimated when applying the Framingham Heart Study model to a Swiss population. To implement a systematic evaluation of risk factors in primary care a greater emphasis should be placed on the teaching of cardiovascular risk evaluation and on the implementation of quality improvement programs.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Continuous quantification of HER2 expression by microfluidic precision immunofluorescence estimates HER2 gene amplification in breast cancer.

Chromogenic immunohistochemistry (IHC) is omnipresent in cancer diagnosis, but has also been criticized for its technical limit in quantifying the level of protein expression on tissue sections, thus potentially masking clinically relevant data. Shifting from qualitative to quantitative, immunofluorescence (IF) has recently gained attention, yet the question of how precisely IF can quantify antigen expression remains unanswered, regarding in particular its technical limitations and applicability to multiple markers. Here we introduce microfluidic precision IF, which accurately quantifies the target expression level in a continuous scale based on microfluidic IF staining of standard tissue sections and low-complexity automated image analysis. We show that the level of HER2 protein expression, as continuously quantified using microfluidic precision IF in 25 breast cancer cases, including several cases with equivocal IHC result, can predict the number of HER2 gene copies as assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Finally, we demonstrate that the working principle of this technology is not restricted to HER2 but can be extended to other biomarkers. We anticipate that our method has the potential of providing automated, fast and high-quality quantitative in situ biomarker data using low-cost immunofluorescence assays, as increasingly required in the era of individually tailored cancer therapy.

Mechanical circulatory support for destination therapy.

Patients with chronic heart failure who are not eligible for heart transplant and whose life expectancy depends mainly on the heart disease may benefit from mechanical circulatory support. Mechanical circulatory support restores adequate cardiac output and organ perfusion and eventually improves patients' clinical condition, quality of life and life expectancy. This treatment is called destination therapy (DT) and we estimate that in Switzerland more than 120 patients per year could benefit from it. In the last 10 years, design of the devices, implantation techniques and prognoses have changed dramatically. The key to successful therapy with a left ventricular assist device is appropriate patient selection, although we are still working on the definition of reliable inclusion and exclusion criteria and optimal timing for surgical implantation. Devices providing best long-term results are continuous flow, rotary or axial blood pumps implanted using minimally invasive techniques on a beating heart. These new devices (Thoratec HeartMate II and HeartWare HVAD) have only a single moving part, and have improved durability with virtually 10 years freedom from mechanical failure. In selected patients, the overall actuarial survival of DT patients is 75% at 1 year and 62% at 2 years, with a clear improvement in quality of life compared with medical management only. Complications include bleeding and infections; their overall incidence is significantly lower than with previous devices and their management is well defined. DT is evolving into an effective and reasonably cost-effective treatment option for a growing population of patients not eligible for heart transplant, showing encouraging survival rates at 2 years and providing clear improvement in quality of life. The future is bright for people suffering from chronic heart failure.