Impact of an Early Invasive Strategy versus Conservative Strategy for Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines support an early invasive approach after NSTE-ACS in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). There is no direct randomised controlled trial evidence in the CKD population, and whether the benefit of an early invasive approach is maintained across the spectrum of severity of CKD remains controversial. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the association between an early invasive approach and all-cause mortality in patients with CKD. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (1990-May 2015) and article reference lists. Data describing study design, participants, invasive management strategies, renal function, all-cause mortality and risk of bias were extracted. RESULTS: 3,861 potentially relevant studies were identified. Ten studies, representing data on 147,908 individuals with NSTE-ACS met the inclusion criteria. Qualitative heterogeneity in the definitions of early invasive approach, comparison groups and renal dysfunction existed. Meta-analysis of the RCT derived and observational data were generally supportive of an early invasive approach in CKD (RR0.76 (95% CI 0.49-1.17) and RR0.50 (95%CI 0.42-0.59) respectively). Meta-analysis of the observational studies demonstrated a large degree of heterogeneity (I2 79%) driven in part by study size and heterogeneity across various kidney function levels. CONCLUSIONS: The observational data support that an early invasive approach after NSTE-ACS confers a survival benefit in those with early-moderate CKD. Local opportunities for quality improvement should be sought. Those with severe CKD and the dialysis population are high risk and under-studied. Novel and inclusive approaches for CKD and dialysis patients in cardiovascular clinical trials are needed

Summer warming explains widespread but not uniform greening in the Arctic tundra biome

Arctic warming can influence tundra ecosystem function with consequences for climate feedbacks, wildlife and human communities. Yet ecological change across the Arctic tundra biome remains poorly quantified due to field measurement limitations and reliance on coarse-resolution satellite data. Here, we assess decadal changes in Arctic tundra greenness using time series from the 30 m resolution Landsat satellites. From 1985 to 2016 tundra greenness increased (greening) at ~37.3% of sampling sites and decreased (browning) at ~4.7% of sampling sites. Greening occurred most often at warm sampling sites with increased summer air temperature, soil temperature, and soil moisture, while browning occurred most often at cold sampling sites that cooled and dried. Tundra greenness was positively correlated with graminoid, shrub, and ecosystem productivity measured at field sites. Our results support the hypothesis that summer warming stimulated plant productivity across much, but not all, of the Arctic tundra biome during recent decades

A randomized trial to assess the impact of opinion leader endorsed evidence summaries on the use of secondary prevention strategies in patients with coronary artery disease: the ESP-CAD trial protocol [NCT00175240]

BACKGROUND: Although numerous therapies have been shown to be beneficial in the prevention of myocardial infarction and/or death in patients with coronary disease, these therapies are under-used and this gap contributes to sub-optimal patient outcomes. To increase the uptake of proven efficacious therapies in patients with coronary disease, we designed a multifaceted quality improvement intervention employing patient-specific reminders delivered at the point-of-care, with one-page treatment guidelines endorsed by local opinion leaders ("Local Opinion Leader Statement"). This trial is designed to evaluate the impact of these Local Opinion Leader Statements on the practices of primary care physicians caring for patients with coronary disease. In order to isolate the effects of the messenger (the local opinion leader) from the message, we will also test an identical quality improvement intervention that is not signed by a local opinion leader ("Unsigned Evidence Statement") in this trial. METHODS: Randomized trial testing three different interventions in patients with coronary disease: (1) usual care versus (2) Local Opinion Leader Statement versus (3) Unsigned Evidence Statement. Patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease after cardiac catheterization (but without acute coronary syndromes) will be randomly allocated to one of the three interventions by cluster randomization (at the level of their primary care physician), if they are not on optimal statin therapy at baseline. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients demonstrating improvement in their statin management in the first six months post-catheterization. Secondary outcomes include examinations of the use of ACE inhibitors, anti-platelet agents, beta-blockers, non-statin lipid lowering drugs, and provision of smoking cessation advice in the first six months post-catheterization in the three treatment arms. Although randomization will be clustered at the level of the primary care physician, the design effect is anticipated to be negligible and the unit of analysis will be the patient. DISCUSSION: If either the Local Opinion Leader Statement or the Unsigned Evidence Statement improves secondary prevention in patients with coronary disease, they can be easily modified and applied in other communities and for other target conditions