PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Effectiveness of disseminating consensus management recommendations for ulcer bleeding: a cluster randomized trial 
Background:
International guidelines for the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding have not been widely adopted in clinical practice. We sought to determine whether a national, multifaceted intervention could improve adherence to guidelines, especially for patients at high risk of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Methods:
In this randomized trial, we stratified hospitals by region and size and allocated sites to either the control or experimental group. Health care workers in the experimental group were given published guidelines, generic algorithms, stratification scoring systems and written reminders and attended multidisciplinary guideline education groups and case-based workshops. These interventions were implemented over a 12-month period after randomization, with performance feedback and benchmarking. The primary outcome of adherence rates to key guidelines in endoscopic and pharmacologic management, determined by chart review, was adjusted according to site characteristics and possible within-site dependencies. We also report the rates of adherence to other recommendations.
Results:
Forty-three sites were randomized to the experimental (n = 21) or control (n = 22) groups. In our primary analysis, we compared patients before (experimental group: n = 402 patients; control group: n = 424 patients) and after (experimental group: n = 361 patients; control group: n = 389 patients) intervention. Patient-level analysis revealed no significant difference in adherence rates to the guidelines after the intervention (experimental group: 9.8%; control group: 4.8%; p = 0.99) after adjustment for the rate of adherence before the intervention (experimental group: 13.2%; control group: 7.1%). The adherence rates to other guidelines were similar and decreased over time, varying between 5% and 93%.
Interpretation:
This national knowledge translation–based trial suggests poor adherence to guidelines on nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Adherence was not improved by an educational intervention, which highlights both the complexity and poor predictability of attempting to alter the behaviour of health care providers (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. MCT-88113).
doi:10.1503/cmaj.120095
PMCID: PMC3576461  PMID: 23318399
2.  Meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and bleeding risk with intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists for percutaneous coronary intervention 
The Canadian Journal of Cardiology  2007;23(12):963-970.
OBJECTIVE:
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become the most common mode of coronary revascularization. Inhibition of platelet aggregation via glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor blockade significantly reduces the acute ischemic complications associated with PCI, but the risk of bleeding may also be increased with these agents. The purpose of the present study was to provide an up-to-date meta-analysis on the clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous GP IIb/IIIa antagonists in patients undergoing PCI.
METHODS:
A comprehensive search was undertaken to identify all randomized trials of GP IIb/IIIa antagonists versus control in patients intended to undergo PCI. Medline, Embase, Biosis, HealthStar and hand searches were performed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, thrombocytopenia and bleeding. OR and their 95% CI were calculated using the random effects model.
RESULTS:
Twenty-one randomized trials were identified, which together included 23,941 patients. The mortality rate at seven days was 0.33% in the GP IIb/IIa group compared with 0.50% in the control group (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.68); at 30 days, the mortality rate was 0.83% versus 1.21%, respectively (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.94); at six months, the mortality rate was 1.92% versus 2.33%, respectively (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.07); and at one year, the mortality rate was 2.61% versus 3.32%, respectively (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00). The number needed to treat at 30 days to save one life was 296. The mortality benefit appeared to dissipate by six months and was of borderline significance at one year. The incidence of MI in the treatment group compared with the control group was reduced at seven days (4.31% versus 6.97%, respectively; OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.75), at 30 days (4.54% versus 6.46% respectively; OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.74) and at six months (5.73% versus 8.29%; OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.77). Repeat revascularization procedures were also significantly lower in the GP IIb/IIIa group compared with the control group at seven days (2.47% versus 4.44%, respectively; OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.84), at 30 days (3.44% versus 5.19%, respectively; OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.77) and at six months (15.21% versus 17.40%, respectively; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94). Overall, the composite of death, MI and repeat revascularization was reduced at all time points. An assessment of risk revealed that the incidence of thrombocytopenia (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.81) and minor bleeding (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.21), but not major bleeding (OR 1.29, 95 CI 0.98 to 1.68), was significantly increased in the GP IIb/IIIa group versus the control group.
CONCLUSIONS:
Treatment with GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the setting of PCI significantly reduces the rates of 30-day mortality, MI and repeat revascularization procedures. These beneficial effects are achieved at an increased risk of thrombocytopenia and minor bleeding, but not major bleeding.
PMCID: PMC2651419  PMID: 17932572
Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists; Meta-analysis; Percutaneous coronary intervention
3.  The use of amiodarone for in-hospital cardiac arrest at two tertiary care centres 
BACKGROUND
Although amiodarone significantly increases survival to hospital admission when used in resuscitation of out-of-hospital pulseless ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation, there are limited data on its utility for in-hospital arrests.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether the use of amiodarone, as recommended by the year 2000 American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support guidelines, improved survival following its introduction to the resuscitation algorithm at two tertiary care institutions.
METHODS
Charts of 374 cardiac resuscitations were retrospectively studied at the two institutions. Basic survival outcomes and demographic data were recorded for cardiac arrests with ventricular tachyarrhythmias qualifying for administration of antiarrhythmic agents.
RESULTS
Qualifying rhythms were present in 95 patients. Clinical uptake of amiodarone was limited. In the 36 patients who received amiodarone, survival of resuscitation was 67% versus 83% (P=0.07) in the 59 patients receiving only other antiarrhythmic agents (chiefly lidocaine [94%]), while survival to discharge was 36.1% and 55.9% (P=0.06) in these two groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Following two years’ experience with the introduction of intravenous amiodarone for resuscitation in the institutions, use was less than 50% and no clinically observable survival benefit could be documented. Possible explanations for the difference between this experience and that found in out-of-hospital resuscitation trials include differing patient populations and operator bias during resuscitation. These results should provoke other institutions to question whether amiodarone has improved survival of cardiac arrest under the conditions prevailing in their hospitals. A patient registry or prospective, randomized trial will be required to assess what parameters affect the success of intravenous amiodarone for resuscitation in-hospital.
PMCID: PMC2528918  PMID: 16520848
Advanced cardiac life support; Amiodarone; Antiarrhythmic drugs
4.  Sicily statement on evidence-based practice 
Background
A variety of definitions of evidence-based practice (EBP) exist. However, definitions are in themselves insufficient to explain the underlying processes of EBP and to differentiate between an evidence-based process and evidence-based outcome. There is a need for a clear statement of what Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) means, a description of the skills required to practise in an evidence-based manner and a curriculum that outlines the minimum requirements for training health professionals in EBP. This consensus statement is based on current literature and incorporating the experience of delegates attending the 2003 Conference of Evidence-Based Health Care Teachers and Developers ("Signposting the future of EBHC").
Discussion
Evidence-Based Practice has evolved in both scope and definition. Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) requires that decisions about health care are based on the best available, current, valid and relevant evidence. These decisions should be made by those receiving care, informed by the tacit and explicit knowledge of those providing care, within the context of available resources.
Health care professionals must be able to gain, assess, apply and integrate new knowledge and have the ability to adapt to changing circumstances throughout their professional life. Curricula to deliver these aptitudes need to be grounded in the five-step model of EBP, and informed by ongoing research. Core assessment tools for each of the steps should continue to be developed, validated, and made freely available.
Summary
All health care professionals need to understand the principles of EBP, recognise EBP in action, implement evidence-based policies, and have a critical attitude to their own practice and to evidence. Without these skills, professionals and organisations will find it difficult to provide 'best practice'.
doi:10.1186/1472-6920-5-1
PMCID: PMC544887  PMID: 15634359
5.  Comparing the quality of oral anticoagulant management by anticoagulation clinics and by family physicians: a randomized controlled trial 
Background
There is growing evidence that better outcomes are achieved when anticoagulation is managed by anticoagulation clinics rather than by family physicians. We carried out a randomized controlled trial to evaluate these 2 models of anticoagulant care.
Methods
We randomly allocated patients who were expected to require warfarin sodium for 3 months either to anticoagulation clinics located in 3 Canadian tertiary hospitals or to their family physician practices. We evaluated the quality of oral anticoagulant management by comparing the proportion of time that the international normalized ratio (INR) of patients receiving warfarin sodium was within the target therapeutic range ± 0.2 INR units (expanded therapeutic range) while they were managed in anticoagulation clinics as opposed to family physicians' care over 3 months. We measured the rates of thromboembolic and major hemorrhagic events and patient satisfaction in the 2 groups.
Results
Of the 221 patients enrolled, 112 were randomly assigned to anticoagulation clinics and 109 to family physicians. The INR values of patients who were managed by anticoagulation clinics were within the expanded therapeutic range 82% of the time versus 76% of the time for those managed by family physicians (p = 0.034). High-risk INR values (defined as being < 1.5 or > 5.0) were more commonly observed in patients managed by family physicians (40%) than in patients managed by anticoagulation clinics (30%, p = 0.005). More INR measurements were performed by family physicians than by anticoagulation clinics (13 v. 11, p = 0.001). Major bleeding events (2 [2%] v. 1 [1%]), thromboembolic events (1 [1%] v. 2 [2%]) and deaths (5 [4%] v. 6 [6%]) occurred at a similar frequency in the anticoagulation clinic and family physician groups respectively. Of the 170 (77%) patients who completed the patient satisfaction questionnaire, more were satisfied when their anticoagulant management was managed through anticoagulation clinics than by their family physicians (p = 0.001).
Interpretation
Anticoagulation clinics provided better oral anticoagulant management than family physicians, but the differences were relatively modest.
PMCID: PMC180652  PMID: 12925422

Results 1-5 (5)