Efficacy and safety of calcium channel blocker/diuretics combination therapy in hypertensive patients: a meta-analysis.

Although recent guidelines recommend the combination of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide (-like) diuretics, this combination is not widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of this combination regarding the following endpoints: all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Four studies with a total of 30,791 of patients met the inclusion criteria. The combination CCB/thiazide (-like) diuretic was associated with a significant risk reduction for myocardial infarction (risk ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.95) and stroke (RR, 0.77; CI, 0.64-0.92) compared with other combinations, whereas it was similarly effective compared with other combinations in reducing the risk of all-cause (RR, 0.89; CI, 0.75-1.06) and cardiovascular (RR, 0.89; CI 0.71-1.10) mortality. Elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension may particularly benefit from such a combination, since both drug classes have been shown to confer cerebrovascular protection.

Minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation should become the standard practice in coronary revascularization surgery†.

We read with great interest the large-scale network meta-analysis by Kowalewski et al. comparing clinical outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operated on using minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) or off-pump (OPCAB) with those undergoing surgery on conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) [1]. The authors actually integrated into single study two recently published meta-analysis comparing MiECC and OPCAB with conventional CPB, respectively [2, 3] into a single study. According to the results of this study, MiECC and OPCAB are both strongly associated with improved perioperative outcomes following CABG when compared with CABG performed on conventional CPB. The authors conclude that MiECC may represent an attractive compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB. After carefully reading the whole manuscript, it becomes evident that the role of MiECC is clearly undervalued. Detailed statistical analysis using the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities indicated that MiECC represented the safer and more effective intervention regarding all-cause mortality and protection from myocardial infarction, cerebral stroke, postoperative atrial fibrillation and renal dysfunction when compared with OPCAB. Even though no significant statistical differences were demonstrated between MiECC and OPCAB, the superiority of MiECC is obvious by the hierarchy of treatments in the probability analysis, which ranked MiECC as the first treatment followed by OPCAB and conventional CPB. Thus, MiECC does not represent a compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB, but an attractive dominant technique in CABG surgery. These results are consistent with the largest published meta-analysis by Anastasiadis et al. comparing MiECC versus conventional CPB including a total of 2770 patients. A significant decrease in mortality was observed when MiECC was used, which was also associated with reduced risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and neurological events [4]. Similarly, another recent meta-analysis by Benedetto et al. compared MiECC versus OPCAB and resulted in comparable outcomes between these two surgical techniques [5]. As stated in the text, superiority of MiECC observed in the current network meta-analysis, when compared with OPCAB, could be attributed to the fact that MiECC offers the potential for complete revascularization, whereas OPCAB poses a challenge for unexperienced surgeons; especially when distal marginal branches on the lateral and/or posterior wall of the heart need revascularization. This is reflected by a significantly lower number of distal anastomoses performed in OPCAB when compared with conventional CPB. Therefore, taking into consideration the literature published up to date, including the results of the current article, we advocate that MiECC should be integrated in the clinical practice guidelines as a state-of-the-art technique and become a standard practice for perfusion in coronary revascularization surgery.

Medication double-checking procedures in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of oncology nurses' experiences.

BACKGROUND Double-checking is widely recommended as an essential method to prevent medication errors. However, prior research has shown that the concept of double-checking is not clearly defined, and that little is known about actual practice in oncology, for example, what kind of checking procedures are applied. OBJECTIVE To study the practice of different double-checking procedures in chemotherapy administration and to explore nurses' experiences, for example, how often they actually find errors using a certain procedure. General evaluations regarding double-checking, for example, frequency of interruptions during and caused by a check, or what is regarded as its essential feature was assessed. METHODS In a cross-sectional survey, qualified nurses working in oncology departments of 3 hospitals were asked to rate 5 different scenarios of double-checking procedures regarding dimensions such as frequency of use in practice and appropriateness to prevent medication errors; they were also asked general questions about double-checking. RESULTS Overall, 274 nurses (70% response rate) participated in the survey. The procedure of jointly double-checking (read-read back) was most commonly used (69% of respondents) and rated as very appropriate to prevent medication errors. Jointly checking medication was seen as the essential characteristic of double-checking-more frequently than 'carrying out checks independently' (54% vs 24%). Most nurses (78%) found the frequency of double-checking in their department appropriate. Being interrupted in one's own current activity for supporting a double-check was reported to occur frequently. Regression analysis revealed a strong preference towards checks that are currently implemented at the responders' workplace. CONCLUSIONS Double-checking is well regarded by oncology nurses as a procedure to help prevent errors, with jointly checking being used most frequently. Our results show that the notion of independent checking needs to be transferred more actively into clinical practice. The high frequency of reported interruptions during and caused by double-checks is of concern.