Biometry and Intraocular Lens Power Calculation by Combined Scheimpflug-Placido Disc versus Optical Interferometry Devices

Purpose: To compare the results of the current gold standard, laser interferometry, and keratometry by the IOL-Master, with a newly developed Galilei G6 using raytracing software Okulix for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculations. Methods: For comparison of the IOL-power calculation of both devices, we analyzed the difference between the actual one-month postoperative subjective refraction and the theoretically calculated target refraction before cataract surgery. The IOL was selected according to the IOL Master recommendation aiming for emmetropia after surgery. We analyzed the differences of the measurements of the basic biometric data in 205 healthy eyes by each device. Results: Our study included 205 healthy, unoperated eyes from 117 patients (61 women, 56 men) aged 20 to 75 years. Twenty-two eyes of cataract patients were also included in this retrospective study design. The mean difference between the prediction of the postoperative refraction and the refraction actually achieved was 0.03 D for the IOL Master and –0.23 D for the Galilei G6. The difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.059). The difference between the IOL power calculation of the IOL Master and the calculation of the G6 was not statistically significant (P = 0.064). The difference between the predicted refraction of the G6 and the refraction achieved after one month was also not statistically significant (P = 0.12) and neither was the difference between the predicted refraction of the IOL Master and the achieved refraction (P = 0.39). The mean axial length was calculated as 24.21 ± 0.80 mm using the IOL Master and 24.27 ± 0.82 mm using the Galilei G6 device. The mean value regarding anterior chamber depth (ACD) of the IOL master was 3.46 ± 0.23 mm and for the Galilei was G6 3.51 ± 0.25 mm. When comparing the white to white (WTW) values of the IOL master, it showed mean values of 12.32 ± 0.31 and Galilei showed mean values of G6 12.21 ± 0.28. All of these differences (between Galileo and IOL Master measurements) were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Both the laser interferometry/keratometry performed by the IOL Master and the interferometry/raytracing biometry strategy performed by the Galilei G6 demonstrated equal results when executing the IOL power calculation before cataract surgery in eyes with no prior ocular surgery

Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in hospitalised medically ill patients The ENDORSE Global Survey

Limited data are available regarding the risk for venous thromboembolism (VIE) and VIE prophylaxis use in hospitalised medically ill patients. We analysed data from the global ENDORSE survey to evaluate VTE risk and prophylaxis use in this population according to diagnosis, baseline characteristics, and country. Data on patient characteristics, VIE risk, and prophylaxis use were abstracted from hospital charts. VTE risk and prophylaxis use were evaluated according to the 2004 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with use of ACCP-recommended prophylaxis. Data were evaluated for 37,356 hospitalised medical patients across 32 countries. VIE risk varied according to medical diagnosis, from 31.2% of patients with gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary diseases to 100% of patients with acute heart failure, active noninfectious respiratory disease, or pulmonary infection (global rate, 41.5%). Among those at risk for VTE, ACCP-recommended prophylaxis was used in 24.4% haemorrhagic stroke patients and 40-45% of cardiopulmonary disease patients (global rate, 39.5%). Large differences in prophylaxis use were observed among countries. Markers of disease severity, including central venous catheters, mechanical ventilation, and admission to intensive care units, were strongly associated with use of ACCP-recommended prophylaxis. In conclusion, VIE risk varies according to medical diagnosis. Less than 40% of at-risk hospitalised medical patients receive ACCP-recommended prophylaxis. Prophylaxis use appears to be associated with disease severity rather than medical diagnosis. These data support the necessity to improve implementation of available guidelines for evaluating VIE risk and providing prophylaxis to hospitalised medical patients

Venous Thromboembolism Risk and Prophylaxis in the Acute Care Hospital Setting (ENDORSE Survey) Findings in Surgical Patients

Objective: To evaluate venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in patients who underwent a major operation, including the use of, and factors influencing, American College of Chest Physicians-recommended types of VTE prophylaxis

Analysis of Outcomes in Ischemic vs Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report From the GARFIELD-AF Registry

IMPORTANCE Congestive heart failure (CHF) is commonly associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), and their combination may affect treatment strategies and outcomes

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used