Optimising care in a Swiss University Emergency Department by implementing a multicentre trauma register (TARN): report on evaluation, costs and benefits of trauma registries

Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to trauma patients are, depending on experience, equipment and different therapeutic doctrines, subject to wide variations. The ability to compare trauma centres using a standardised trauma register helps to reveal unresolved systemic issues and simplifies the quality management in an Emergency Department (ED).

Reporting of noninferiority trials was incomplete in trial registries

Objective To examine the registration of noninferiority trials, with a focus on the reporting of study design and noninferiority margins. Study Design and Setting Cross-sectional study of registry records of noninferiority trials published from 2005 to 2009 and records of noninferiority trials in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) or ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries. The main outcome was the proportion of records that reported the noninferiority design and margin. Results We analyzed 87 registry records of published noninferiority trials and 149 registry records describing noninferiority trials. Thirty-five (40%) of 87 records from published trials described the trial as a noninferiority trial; only two (2%) reported the noninferiority margin. Reporting of the noninferiority design was more frequent in the ISRCTN registry (13 of 18 records, 72%) compared with ClinicalTrials.gov (22 of 69 records, 32%; P = 0.002). Among the 149 records identified in the registries, 13 (9%) reported the noninferiority margin. Only one of the industry-sponsored trial compared with 11 of the publicly funded trials reported the margin (P = 0.001). Conclusion Most registry records of noninferiority trials do not mention the noninferiority design and do not include the noninferiority margin. The registration of noninferiority trials is unsatisfactory and must be improved.

Comparative effectiveness research across two spine registries

Comparative effectiveness research in spine surgery is still a rarity. In this study, pain alleviation and quality of life (QoL) improvement after lumbar total disc arthroplasty (TDA) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) were anonymously compared by surgeon and implant.

Differences in coronary risk factors, procedural characteristics, mortality and stent thrombosis between two all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention registries from Europe and Japan: a patient-level data analysis of the Bern-Rotterdam and j-Cypher registries

Aims: The reported rate of stent thrombosis (ST) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation varies among registries. To investigate differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcome in European and Japanese all-comers registries, we performed a pooled analysis of patient-level data. Methods and results: The j-Cypher registry (JC) is a multicentre observational study conducted in Japan, including 12,824 patients undergoing SES implantation. From the Bern-Rotterdam registry (BR) enrolled at two academic hospitals in Switzerland and the Netherlands, 3,823 patients with SES were included in the current analysis. Patients in BR were younger, more frequently smokers and presented more frequently with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI). Conversely, JC patients more frequently had diabetes and hypertension. At five years, the definite ST rate was significantly lower in JC than BR (JC 1.6% vs. BR 3.3%, p<0.001), while the unadjusted mortality tended to be lower in BR than in JC (BR 13.2% vs. JC 14.4%, log-rank p=0.052). After adjustment, the j-Cypher registry was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.49-0.64) as well as definite stent thrombosis (HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35-0.61). Conclusions: The baseline characteristics of the two large registries were different. After statistical adjustment, JC was associated with lower mortality and ST.

A new universal, standardized implant database for product identification: a unique tool for arthroplasty registries.

INTRODUCTION Every joint registry aims to improve patient care by identifying implants that have an inferior performance. For this reason, each registry records the implant name that has been used in the individual patient. In most registries, a paper-based approach has been utilized for this purpose. However, in addition to being time-consuming, this approach does not account for the fact that failure patterns are not necessarily implant specific but can be associated with design features that are used in a number of implants. Therefore, we aimed to develop and evaluate an implant product library that allows both time saving barcode scanning on site in the hospital for the registration of the implant components and a detailed description of implant specifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS A task force consisting of representatives of the German Arthroplasty Registry, industry, and computer specialists agreed on a solution that allows barcode scanning of implant components and that also uses a detailed standardized classification describing arthroplasty components. The manufacturers classified all their components that are sold in Germany according to this classification. The implant database was analyzed regarding the completeness of components by algorithms and real-time data. RESULTS The implant library could be set up successfully. At this point, the implant database includes more than 38,000 items, of which all were classified by the manufacturers according to the predefined scheme. Using patient data from the German Arthroplasty Registry, several errors in the database were detected, all of which were corrected by the respective implant manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS The implant library that was developed for the German Arthroplasty Registry allows not only on-site barcode scanning for the registration of the implant components but also its classification tree allows a sophisticated analysis regarding implant characteristics, regardless of brand or manufacturer. The database is maintained by the implant manufacturers, thereby allowing registries to focus their resources on other areas of research. The database might represent a possible global model, which might encourage harmonization between joint replacement registries enabling comparisons between joint replacement registries.

Is a Revision a Revision? An Analysis of National Arthroplasty Registries' Definitions of Revision.

BACKGROUND The reported survival of implants depends on the definition used for the endpoint, usually revision. When screening through registry reports from different countries, it appears that revision is defined quite differently. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES The purposes of this study were to compare the definitions of revision among registry reports and to apply common clinical scenarios to these definitions. METHODS We downloaded or requested reports of all available national joint registries. Of the 23 registries we identified, 13 had published reports that were available in English and were beyond the pilot phase. We searched these registries' reports for the definitions of the endpoint, mostly revision. We then applied the following scenarios to the definition of revision and analyzed if those scenarios were regarded as a revision: (A) wound revision without any addition or removal of implant components (such as hematoma evacuation); (B) exchange of head and/or liner (like for infection); (C) isolated secondary patella resurfacing; and (D) secondary patella resurfacing with a routine liner exchange. RESULTS All registries looked separately at the characteristic of primary implantation without a revision and 11 of 13 registers reported on the characteristics of revisions. Regarding the definition of revision, there were considerable differences across the reports. In 11 of 13 reports, the primary outcome was revision of the implant. In one registry the primary endpoint was "reintervention/revision" while another registry reported separately on "failure" and "reoperations". In three registries, the definition of the outcome was not provided, however in one report a results list gave an indication for the definition of the outcome. Wound revision without any addition or removal of implant components (scenario A) was considered a revision in three of nine reports that provided a clear definition on this question, whereas two others did not provide enough information to allow this determination. Exchange of the head and/or liner (like for infection; scenario B) was considered a revision in 11 of 11; isolated secondary patella resurfacing (scenario C) in six of eight; and secondary patella resurfacing with routine liner exchange (scenario D) was considered a revision in nine of nine reports. CONCLUSIONS Revision, which is the most common main endpoint used by arthroplasty registries, is not universally defined. This implies that some reoperations that are considered a revision in one registry are not considered a revision in another registry. Therefore, comparisons of implant performance using data from different registries have to be performed with caution. We suggest that registries work to harmonize their definitions of revision to help facilitate comparisons of results across the world's arthroplasty registries.

Management of phenylketonuria in Europe: survey results from 19 countries

To gain better insight in the most current diagnosis and treatment practices for phenylketonuria (PKU) from a broad group of experts, a European PKU survey was performed. The questionnaire, consisting of 33 questions, was sent to 243 PKU professionals in 165 PKU centers in 23 European countries. The responses were compiled and descriptive analyses were performed. One hundred and one questionnaires were returned by 93/165 centers (56%) from 19/23 European countries (83%). The majority of respondents (77%) managed patients of all age groups and more than 90% of PKU teams included physicians or dieticians/nutritionists. The greatest variability existed especially in the definition of PKU phenotypes, therapeutic blood phenylalanine (Phe) target concentrations, and follow-up practices for PKU patients. The tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4; sapropterin) loading test was performed by 54% of respondents, of which 61% applied a single dose test (20mg/kg over 24h). BH4 was reported as a treatment option by 34%. This survey documents differences in diagnostic and treatment practices for PKU patients in European centers. In particular, recommendations for the treatment decision varied greatly between different European countries. There is an urgent need to pool long-term data in PKU registries in order to generate an evidence-based international guideline.

Acute ischemic stroke in children versus young adults

The aim of this study was to compare children and young adults with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) in 2 large registries.

The effects of cause of death classification on prognostic assessment of patients with pulmonary embolism

Although previous studies have provided evidence that the majority of deaths following an acute pulmonary embolism (PE) directly relate to the PE, more recent registries and cohort studies suggest otherwise.