Citations

Abstract Background We previously tested an intervention featuring educational outreach with modified academic detailing (AD) to increase anticoagulation (AC) use in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Currently, we compare providers receiving and not receiving AD in terms of inclusion of our AD educational topics and shared decision-making elements in documentation. Methods Physicians reviewed themes discussed with providers during AD and evaluated charts for evidence of shared decision-making. We then compared frequency of documentation of individual items for providers receiving AD compared with non-AD providers. To understand baseline documentation practices of AD providers, we also randomly selected encounters of AD providers before their AD participation. Results There were 113 eligible encounters in the four months after AD - 36 from AD providers and 77 from non-AD providers. We also identified 35 encounters from AD providers before participating in the intervention. Providers infrequently documented many reviewed items (% documenting): AC mentioned (44%), multiple options for AC (5%), CHA2DS2-VASc score (11%), bleeding risk factors (2%). Compared with non-AD providers, AD providers had statistically significant higher percentages for the following items: mention of AC (64% versus 35%), stroke risk (11% versus 0%), AC benefits (8% versus 0%), patient involvement (70% versus 0%). There was no improvement, however, for AD providers compared with baseline documentation percentages. Conclusions Providers infrequently documented important items in AC management and shared decision-making. AD participation did not improve documentation. Improving adoption of AD educational items may require more prolonged interaction with providers. Improving shared decision-making may require an intervention more focused on it and its documentation. Trial Registration The trial was registered as NCT03583008 on Clinicaltrials.gov on July 11, 2018.

Objective Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) availability, programme characteristics and barriers are not well-known in low/middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, they were compared with high-income countries (HICs) and by CR funding source. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was administered to CR programmes globally. Need for CR was computed using incident ischaemic heart disease (IHD) estimates from the Global Burden of Disease study. General linear mixed models were performed. Results CR was identified in 55/138 (39.9%) LMICs; 47/55 (85.5% country response rate) countries participated and 335 (53.5% programme response) surveys were initiated. There was one CR spot for every 66 IHD patients in LMICs (vs 3.4 in HICs). CR was most often paid by patients in LMICs (n=212, 65.0%) versus government in HICs (n=444, 60.2%; p<0.001). Over 85% of programmes accepted guideline-indicated patients. Cardiologists (n=266, 89.3%), nurses (n=234, 79.6%; vs 544, 91.7% in HICs, p=0.001) and physiotherapists (n=233, 78.7%) were the most common providers on CR teams (mean=5.8±2.8/programme). Programmes offered 7.3±1.8/10 core components (vs 7.9±1.7 in HICs, p<0.01) over 33.7±30.7 sessions (significantly greater in publicly funded programmes; p<0.001). Publicly funded programmes were more likely to have social workers and psychologists on staff, and to offer tobacco cessation and psychosocial counselling. Conclusion CR is only available in 40% of LMICs, but where offered is fairly consistent with guidelines. Governments should enact policies to reimburse CR so patients do not pay out-of-pocket.

Background: Radial access (RA) is increasingly used in chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention with encouraging results. However, there are concerns about its safety and efficacy because of higher complexity and the need for strong guide catheter support. Methods and Results: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies published through November 2018 reporting the outcomes of RA versus femoral access in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcomes included major bleeding, access-site complications, in-hospital major adverse events, and technical success. Nine observational studies with 10 590 patients (10 617 lesions) were included in the meta-analysis. CTO lesions attempted using RA had lower Japan-CTO score (2.3±1.2 versus 2.5±1.3; P <0.001). Use of RA was associated with similar technical success (78.7% versus 78.5%; odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.94–1.31; P =0.24; I 2 =23%), lower risk of access-site complications (0.73% versus 1.79%; odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22–0.51; P <0.001; I 2 =0%) and major bleeding (0.18% versus 0.9%; odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10–0.45; P <0.001; I 2 =0%), and similar risk of in-hospital adverse events and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.12–1.07; P =0.07; I 2 =0%) as compared to femoral access. Results were similar when analyzing radial-only versus any femoral access and when excluding the largest study. Conclusions: As compared with femoral access, RA is used in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of less complex lesions and is associated with fewer access-site complications and major bleeding and comparable technical success.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight the updated recommendations for use of multigene assays to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic chemotherapy therapy for women with hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative early-stage invasive breast cancer. This report summarizes these updates and discusses the rationale behind them.