Effect of intraoperative hypovolemic phlebotomy on transfusion and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing hepatectomy : a retrospective cohort study

Background There is no consensus on how to best achieve a low central venous pressure during hepatectomy for the purpose of reducing blood loss and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. We analyzed the associations between intraoperative hypovolemic phlebotomy (IOHP), transfusions, and postoperative outcomes in cancer patients undergoing hepatectomy. Methods Using surgical and transfusion databases of patients who underwent hepatectomy for cancer at one institution (11 January 2011 to 22 June 2017), we retrospectively analyzed associations between IOHP and RBC transfusion on the day of surgery (primary outcome), and with total perioperative transfusions, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications (secondary outcomes). We fitted logistic regression models by inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for confounders and reported adjusted odds ratio (aOR). Results There were 522 instances of IOHP performed during 683 hepatectomies, with a mean (standard deviation) volume of 396 (119) mL. The IOHP patients had a 6.9% transfusion risk on the day of surgery compared with 12.4% in non-IOHP patients (aOR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29 to 0.98; P = 0.04). Total perioperative RBC transfusion tended to be lower in IOHP patients compared with non-IOHP patients (14.9% vs 22.4%, respectively; aOR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.16; P = 0.18). In patients with a predicted risk of >= 47.5% perioperative RBC transfusion, 24.6% were transfused when IOHP was used compared with 56.5% without IOHP. The incidence of severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo scores >= 3) was similar in patients whether or not IOHP was performed (15% vs 16% respectively; aOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.54; P = 0.71). Conclusions The use of IOHP during hepatectomy was associated with less RBCs transfused on the same day of surgery. Trials comparing IOHP with other techniques to reduce blood loss and transfusion are needed in liver surgery

Validation of the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale: A Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network cohort study

Objective: Self-management programs for patients with chronic illnesses, including rheumatic diseases, seek to enhance self-efficacy for performing health management behaviors. No measure of self-efficacy has been validated for patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma). The objective of this study was to assess the validity and internal consistency reliability of the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease (SEMCD) scale in SSc. Methods: English-speaking SSc patients enrolled in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort who completed the SEMCD scale at their baseline assessment between March 2014 and June 2015 were included. Patients were enrolled from 21 sites in Canada, the US, and the UK. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the factor structure of the SEMCD scale. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to assess internal consistency reliability. Hypotheses on the direction and magnitude of Pearson's correlations with psychological and physical outcome measures were formulated and tested to examine convergent validity. Results: A total of 553 patients were included. CFA supported the single-factor structure of the SEMCD scale (Tucker Lewis Index = 0.99, comparative fit index = 0.99, root mean square error of approximation = 0.10). Internal consistency was high (alpha = 0.93), and correlations with measures of psychological and physical functioning were moderate to large (|r| = 0.48-0.67, P < 0.001), confirming study hypotheses. Conclusion: Scores from the SEMCD scale are valid for measuring self-efficacy in patients with SSc, and results support using the scale as an outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of self-management programs in SSc

Performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 in scleroderma: A Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort Study

Contains fulltext : 175251.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Objective. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-29 assesses seven health-related quality of life domains plus pain intensity. The objective was to examine PROMIS-29v2 validity and explore clinical associations in patients with SSc. Methods. English-speaking SSc patients in the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort from 26 sites in Canada, the USA and the UK completed the PROMIS-29v2 between July 2014 and November 2015. Enrolling physicians provided medical data. To examine convergent validity, hypotheses on the direction and magnitude of correlations with legacy measures were tested. For clinical associations, t-tests were conducted for dichotomous variables and PROMIS-29v2 domain scores. Effect sizes (ESs) were labelled as small (0.75). Results. There were 696 patients (87% female), mean (s.d.) disease duration 11.6 (8.7) years, 57% with limited cutaneous subtype. Validity indices were consistent with seven of nine hypotheses (|r| =0.51-0.87, P < 0.001), with minor divergence for two hypotheses. Gastrointestinal involvement was associated with significantly worse outcomes for all eight PROMIS-29v2 domains (moderate or moderate to large ES in six of eight). Presence of joint contractures was associated with significant decrements in seven domains (small or small to moderate ESs). Skin thickening, diffuse cutaneous subtype and presence of overlap syndromes were significantly associated (small or small to moderate ESs) with five or six domains. Conclusion. This study further establishes the validity of the PROMIS-29v2 in SSc and underlines the importance of gastrointestinal symptoms and joint contractures in reduced health-related quality of life.10 p

Performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 in scleroderma: A Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort Study [Correction]

Item does not contain fulltextIn the original article [https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kex055], the SPIN Investigators were not listed; instead they were listed in the supplementary data file. They have now been moved to the Acknowledgements section of the main article so that they can be tagged for inclusion as collaborators in PubMed.05 juni 20191 p

Concerns in using multi-detector computed tomography for diagnosing pulmonary embolism in daily practice. A cross-sectional analysis using expert opinion as reference standard

Item does not contain fulltextMulti-detector computed tomography (MDCT) is considered to be the reference standard in diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE). However, two concerns remain. Firstly, with the introduction of MDCT the prevalence of (sub)segmental emboli increased but the clinical implications of these small clots are uncertain. Secondly, we are not well informed about the number of false-positive CT-scans due to the lack of a gold standard.We used data from a prospective primary care study including patients suspected of pulmonary embolism. CT-scan-reading by the local radiologist in daily care was retrospectively compared with expert reading as reference standard. Final diagnosis was categorized as central/lobar, segmental or subsegmental PE.A total of 79 patients were included. In 3 of 30 patients (10\%) diagnosed with PE by the local radiologist the experts refuted the diagnosis. In 7 of 49 patients (14\%) not diagnosed with PE by the local radiologist the experts confirmed the presence of PE. The experts diagnosed 17 of 32 PE-patients (53\%) with a central or lobar PE. All these 17 patients were also diagnosed with PE by the local radiologist. The experts diagnosed 15 patients with (sub)segmental PE. In 7 of these 15 patients (47\%) the local radiologist refuted PE.Accuracy of MDCT using the expert radiologist as reference standard is not optimal. On the one hand it shows 10\% false-positives exposing patients to anticoagulant treatment unnecessarily. On the other hand small emboli seem to be missed although the clinical implications of this finding are not fully clear