Sorita, Atsushi

Importance: Up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have right bundle branch block (RBBB), and RBBB has been associated with a higher risk of mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB for patients with AMI. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) Data Sources: We have systematically searched Ovid, Scopus and Web of Science through January 2014. Study Selection: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts, selecting studies that described all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death in patients with RBBB and suspected ACS. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcomes. Knowledge synthesis: We pooled risk ratio with hazard ratio in studies reporting those outcomes. When reported, odds ratio was converted into risk ratio using reported event rate in each study’s unexposed -read: non RBBB- group. Main Outcomes: All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (death). Results: Eighteen studies were found that reported eligible data. All were observational studies, involving over 89,000 patients. In short-term follow up (up to 30 days), RBBB on presentation was associated with higher all-cause mortality rate, compared to patients without RBBB (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.76-2.82). There was a trend for higher mortality at long-term follow up (range: 6 months-16 years) that did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.93-2.25). Figure-1 demonstrates the forest plot. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and majority of included studied were deemed moderate to high quality. Conclusion and Relevance: RBBB is associated with a more than 2-fold higher risk of all-cause mortality in patients with AMI at 30 days follow up. Patients with AMI and RBBB represent a high risk group for adverse outcomes. A sentence on the differential findings for new vs. old RBBB and association with outcomes could follow here.

Importance: Right bundle branch block (RBBB) is observed in approximately 5-14% of patients with heart failure (HF). Multiple observational studies have reported the association of RBBB with clinical outcomes in patients with HF. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB for patients with HF. Data Sources: We have systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus through January 2014. Study Selection: Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts that described all cause or cardiovascular mortality in patients with RBBB and HF. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcome, i.e.: unadjusted event rates. Knowledge synthesis: We pooled reported risk ratio and hazard ratio. Main Outcomes: All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (death). Results: We found 12 relevant observational studies enrolling over 38,000 patients. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Included studies had at least a moderate quality. Seven of those evaluated prognosis of patients with RBBB and heart failure. After a mean follow up period of 2.5 years (range: 1-5 years), RBBB was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure but no BBB, RR 1.27, 95% CI (1.08-1.50), Figure 1. The other 5 studies evaluated CHF patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), comparing outcomes of patients with RBBB to those with LBBB. After a mean f/u period of 3 years, patients with RBBB were once again found to have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.12-1.89. Conclusion and Relevance: RBBB in patients with HF is associated with higher all-cause mortality in comparison to patients without inter-ventricular conduction defects, as well as LBBB patients in patients undergoing CRT setting.

Objective: Multiple large population based observational studies have evaluated the association of various ECG changes with long term adverse outcomes demonstrating conflicting results regarding the significance of right bundle branch block (RBBB). Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of RBBB in healthy population. Methods: This systematic review follows an a priori established protocol and is reported following the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). We systematically searched EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus through January 2014. We also consulted with content experts to recommend studies for screening. Reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened all eligible abstracts, selecting randomized trials and prospective cohort studies that described all cause mortality or cardiovascular death in patients with RBBB. We excluded studies that reported unadjusted outcome or unadjusted event rates. For statistical analysis, hazard ratios were considered to approximate risk ratios. The main outcomes of the study are all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Results: Based on the eligibility, four large cohorts, with total patient count > 100,000 were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and included studies were deemed to be of high quality. As demonstrated in Figure 1, RBBB was not associated increase in all-cause mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.89-1.25) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.70-1.69). Conclusion: In asymptomatic healthy patients, RBBB is not associated with poor outcome.

Background Hospital discharge summaries enable communication between inpatient and outpatient physicians. Despite existing guidelines for discharge summaries, they are frequently suboptimal. Objective The aim of this study was to assess physicians’ perspectives about discharge summaries and the differences between summaries’ authors (hospitalists) and readers (primary care physicians [PCPs]). Methods A national survey of 1600 U.S. physicians was undertaken. Primary measures included physicians’ preferences in discharge summary standardization, content, format, and audience. Results A total of 815 physicians responded (response rate = 51%). Eighty-nine percent agreed that discharge summaries “should have a standardized format.” Most agreed that summaries should “document everything that was done, found, and recommended in the hospital” (64%) yet “only include details that are highly pertinent to the hospitalization” (66%). Although 74% perceived patients as an important audience of discharge summaries, only 43% agreed that summaries “should be written in language that patients…can easily understand,” and 68% agreed that it “should be written solely for provider-to-provider communication.” Compared with hospitalists, PCPs preferred comprehensive summaries (68% versus 59%, P = 0.002). More PCPs agreed that separate summaries should be created for patients and for provider-to-provider communication than hospitalists (60% versus 47%, P < 0.001). Compared with PCPs, more hospitalists believe that “hospitalists are too busy to prepare a high-quality discharge summary” (44% versus 23%, P < 0.001) and “PCPs have insufficient time to read an entire discharge summary” (60% versus 38%, P < 0.001). Conclusions Physicians believe that discharge summaries should have a standardized format but do not agree on how comprehensive or in what format they should be. Efforts are necessary to build consensus toward the ideal discharge summary.

While many hospitalized patients have orders to fast in preparation for interventions, the extent to which these orders are necessary or adhere to evidence‐based durations is unknown. In this study, we analyzed the length, indication, and associated outcomes of nil per os (NPO) orders for general medicine patients at an academic institution in the United States, and compared them to the best available evidence for recommended length of NPO. Of 924 NPO orders assessed, the indicated intervention was not performed for 183 (19.8%) orders, largely due to a change in plan (75/183, 41.0%) or scheduling barriers (43/183, 23.5%). When analyzed by indication, the median duration of NPO orders ranged from 8.3 hours for kidney ultrasound to 13.9 hours for upper endoscopy. For some indications, the literature suggested NPO orders may be unnecessary. Furthermore, in indications for which NPO was deemed necessary in the literature, the duration of most NPO orders was much longer than minimally required. These results suggest the need for establishing more robust practice guidelines or institutional protocols for NPO orders.

CONTEXT:The effectiveness of many interventions aimed at reducing the risk of retinopathy has not been well established.OBJECTIVE:To estimate the effectiveness of nutritional interventions, oxygen saturation targeting, blood transfusion management, and infection prevention on the incidence of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).DATA SOURCES:A comprehensive search of several databases was conducted, including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus through March 2014.STUDY SELECTION:We included studies that evaluated nutritional interventions, management of supplemental oxygen, blood transfusions, or infection reduction and reported the incidence of ROP and mortality in neonates born at &lt;32 weeks.DATA EXTRACTION:We extracted patient characteristics, interventions, and risk of bias indicators. Outcomes of interest were any stage ROP, severe ROP or ROP requiring treatment, and mortality.RESULTS:We identified 67 studies enrolling 21 819 infants. Lower oxygen saturation targets reduced the risk of developing any stage ROP (relative risk [RR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–0.97) and severe ROP or ROP requiring intervention (RR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.45–0.74) but increased mortality (RR 1.15, 95% CI, 1.04–1.29). Aggressive parenteral nutrition reduced the risk of any stage ROP but not severe ROP. Supplementation of vitamin A, E, or inositol and breast milk feeding were beneficial but only in observational studies. Use of transfusion guidelines, erythropoietin, and antifungal agents were not beneficial.LIMITATIONS:Results of observational studies were not replicated in randomized trials. Interventions were heterogeneous across studies.CONCLUSIONS:At the present time, there are no safe interventions supported with high quality evidence to prevent severe ROP.

AbstractWe developed and implemented a ‘CPOE-QT Alert’ system, that is, clinical decision support integrated in the computerized physician order entry system (CPOE), in 2011. The system identifies any attempts to order medications with risk of torsade de pointes (TdP) for patients with a history of significant QT prolongation (QTc ≥500 ms) and alerts the provider entering the order. We assessed its impact by comparing orders and subsequent medication administration before and after activation of the system. We found a significant decrease in the proportion of completed order per ordering attempt after system activation (94% (1293/1379) vs 77% (1888/2453), difference 16.8%; p&lt;0.001). This resulted in a 13.9% reduction in the administration of those medications to patients. A significant decrease was observed across all provider types, educational levels, and specialties. The CPOE-QT Alert system successfully reduced exposure to QT-prolonging medications in high risk patients.

Background: Although limiting prescription refills is considered as a strategy to increase compliance with the treatment regimen and follow-up, no literature exists to support its effectiveness. We sought to investigate whether decreasing the number of prescription refills affects no-show rate at an urban teaching primary care continuity clinic in New York. Methods: Eight teaching attending physicians and 19 residents implemented a “new prescribing strategy” from February 9 to 22, 2012, which limited the number of refills only to cover until the next intended clinic visit. All adult patient visits were included if follow-up visits were requested to be scheduled within 3 months and prescriptions were given through an electronic prescription system. No-show rates for the first follow-up visits up to 120 days from the initial visits during the interventional period were compared with those during the baseline period (December 15-28, 2011). Results: Two hundred twenty-one patients in the baseline period and 278 in the interventional period were included in the analysis. Median total supply of prescription was 6 and 3 months, respectively ( P < .001). The no-show rates were not significantly different between the 2 periods (19.0% [42/221] vs 16.6% [46/278], P = .5). In multivariate regression analysis, the no-show rate did not change significantly during the interventional period compared with the baseline period (odds ratio [OR] 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.5; P = .8). Younger age (OR 1.03 per year, P = .008), male gender (OR 2.0, P = .003), Medicaid or Medicare insurance (OR 3.7, P = .01; OR 4.2, P = .02), and diagnosis of diabetes (OR 1.8, P = .04) or asthma (OR 2.0, P = .03) were associated with higher no-show rates. Conclusions: Reducing the number of refills did not significantly affect no-show rates in the immediate follow-up. Alternative strategies should be considered to minimize no-shows.