Risk estimates of recurrent congenital anomalies in the UK: a population-based register study

BACKGROUND: Recurrence risks for familial congenital anomalies in successive pregnancies are known, but this information for major structural anomalies is lacking. We estimated the absolute and relative risks of recurrent congenital anomaly in the second pregnancy for women with a history of a congenital anomaly in the first pregnancy; for all major anomaly groups and subtypes. METHODS: Population-based register data on 18,605 singleton pregnancies affected by major congenital anomaly occurring in 872,493 singleton stillbirths, live births and terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly were obtained from the Northern Congenital Abnormality Survey, North of England, UK, for 1985-2010. Absolute risks (ARs) and relative risks (RRs) for recurrent congenital anomaly (overall, from a similar group, from a dissimilar group) in the second pregnancy were estimated by history of congenital anomaly (overall, by group, by subtype) in the first pregnancy. RESULTS: The estimated prevalences of congenital anomaly in first and second pregnancies were 276 (95% CI 270-281) and 163 (95% CI 159-168) per 10,000 respectively. For women whose first pregnancy was affected by congenital anomaly, the AR of recurrent congenital anomaly in the second pregnancy was 408 (95% CI 365-456) per 10,000; 2.5 (95% CI 2.3-2.8, p<0.0001) times higher than for those with unaffected first pregnancies. For similar anomalies, the recurrence risk was considerably elevated (RR=23.8, 95% CI 19.6-27.9, P<0.0001) while for dissimilar anomalies the increase was more modest (RR=1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6, P=0.001), although the ARs for both were 2%. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute recurrence risks varied between 1 in 20 and 1 in 30 for most major anomaly groups. At pre-conception and antenatal counselling, women whose first pregnancy was affected by a congenital anomaly and who are planning a further pregnancy may find it reassuring that despite high relative risks, the absolute recurrence risk is relatively low

The Chest Pain Choice trial: a pilot randomized trial of a decision aid for patients with chest pain in the emergency department

Background: Chest pain is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department (ED). Despite the frequency with which clinicians evaluate patients with chest pain, accurately determining the risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and sharing risk information with patients is challenging. The aims of this study are (1) to develop a decision aid (CHEST PAIN CHOICE) that communicates the short-term risk of ACS and (2) to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on patient participation in decision-making and resource use. Methods/Design: This is a protocol for a parallel, 2-arm randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving CHEST PAIN CHOICE to a control group receiving usual ED care. Adults presenting to the Saint Mary's Hospital ED in Rochester, MN USA with a primary complaint of chest pain who are being considered for admission for prolonged ED observation in a specialized unit and urgent cardiac stress testing will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of CHEST PAIN CHOICE on six outcomes: (1) patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS and the risks of radiation exposure; (2) quality of the decision making process; (3) patient and clinician acceptability and satisfaction with the decision aid; (4) the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and urgent cardiac stress testing; (5) economic costs and healthcare utilization; and (6) the rate of delayed or missed ACS. To capture these outcomes, we will administer patient and clinician surveys after each visit, obtain video recordings of the clinical encounters, and conduct 30-day phone follow-up. Discussion: This pilot randomized trial will develop and evaluate a decision aid for use in ED chest pain patients at low risk for ACS and provide a preliminary estimate of its effect on patient participation in decision-making and resource use

Evidence for net renal tubule oxalate secretion in patients with calcium kidney stones

Little is known about the renal handling of oxalate in patients with idiopathic hypercalciuria (IH). To explore the role of tubular oxalate handling in IH and to evaluate whether differences exist between IH and normal controls, we studied 19 IH subjects, 8 normal subjects, and 2 bariatric stone formers (BSF) during a 1-day General Clinical Research Center protocol utilizing a low-oxalate diet. Urine and blood samples were collected at 30- to 60-min intervals while subjects were fasting and after they ate three meals providing known amounts of calcium, phosphorus, sodium, protein, oxalate, and calories. Plasma oxalate concentrations and oxalate-filtered loads were similar between patients (includes IH and BSF) and controls in both the fasting and fed states. Urinary oxalate excretion was significantly higher in patients vs. controls regardless of feeding state. Fractional excretion of oxalate (FEOx) was >1, suggesting tubular secretion of oxalate, in 6 of 19 IH and both BSF, compared with none of the controls (P < 0.00001). Adjusted for water extraction along the nephron, urine oxalate rose more rapidly among patients than normal subjects with increases in plasma oxalate. Our findings identify tubular secretion of oxalate as a key mediator of hyperoxaluria in calcium stone formers, potentially as a means of maintaining plasma oxalate in a tight range