Sustained impact of electronic alerts on rate of prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism

Advanced electronic alerts (eAlerts) and computerised physician order entry (CPOE) increase adequate thromboprophylaxis orders among hospitalised medical patients. It remains unclear whether eAlerts maintain their efficacy over time, after withdrawal of continuing medical education (CME) on eAlerts and on thromboprophylaxis indications from the study staff. We analysed 5,317 hospital cases from the University Hospital Zurich during 2006-2009: 1,854 cases from a medical ward with eAlerts (interventiongroup) and 3,463 cases from a surgical ward without eAlerts (controlgroup). In the intervention group, an eAlert with hospital-specific venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention guidelines was issued in the electronic patient chart 6 hours after admission if no pharmacological or mechanical thromboprophylaxis had been ordered. Data were analysed for three phases: pre-implementation (phase 1), eAlert implementation with CME (phase 2), and post-implementation without CME (phase3). The rates of thromboprophylaxis in the intervention group were 43.4% in phase 1 and 66.7% in phase 2 (p<0.001), and increased further to 73.6% in phase3 (p=0.011). Early thromboprophylaxis orders within 12 hours after admission were more often placed in phase 2 and 3 as compared to phase 1 (67.1% vs. 52.1%, p<0.001). In the surgical control group, the thromboprophylaxis rates in the three phases were 88.6%, 90.7%, 90.6% (p=0.16). Advanced eAlerts may provide sustained efficacy over time, with stable rates of thromboprophylaxis orders among hospitalised medical patients.

Can molecular markers stratify the diagnostic value of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia?

The diagnostic performance of isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in prostatic biopsies has recently been questioned, and molecular analysis of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia has been proposed for improved prediction of prostate cancer. Here, we retrospectively studied the value of isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and the immunohistochemical markers ?-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase, Bcl-2, annexin II, and Ki-67 for better risk stratification of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in our local Swiss population. From an initial 165 diagnoses of isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, we refuted 61 (37%) after consensus expert review. We used 30 reviewed high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia cases with simultaneous biopsy prostate cancer as positive controls. Rebiopsies were performed in 66 patients with isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, and the median time interval between initial and repeat biopsy was 3 months. Twenty (30%) of the rebiopsies were positive for prostate cancer, and 10 (15%) showed persistent isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Another 2 (3%) of the 66 patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer in a second rebiopsy. Mean prostate-specific antigen serum levels did not significantly differ between the 22 patients with prostate cancer and the 44 without prostate cancer in rebiopsies, and the 30 positive control patients, respectively (median values, 8.1, 7.7, and 8.8 ng/mL). None of the immunohistochemical markers, including ?-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase, Bcl-2, annexin II, and Ki-67, revealed a statistically significant association with the risk of prostate cancer in repeat biopsies. Taken together, the 33% risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer after a diagnosis of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia justifies rebiopsy, at least in our not systematically prostate-specific antigen-screened population. There is not enough evidence that immunohistochemical markers can reproducibly stratify the risk of prostate cancer after a diagnosis of isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia.