Chest wall syndrome among primary care patients: a cohort study

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of chest pain differs strongly between outpatient and emergency settings. In general practice, the most frequent cause is the chest wall pain. However, there is a lack of information about the characteristics of this syndrome. The aims of the study are to describe the clinical aspects of chest wall syndrome (CWS). METHODS: Prospective, observational, cohort study of patients attending 58 private practices over a five-week period from March to May 2001 with undifferentiated chest pain. During a one-year follow-up, questionnaires including detailed history and physical exam, were filled out at initial consultation, 3 and 12 months. The outcomes were: clinical characteristics associated with the CWS diagnosis and clinical evolution of the syndrome. RESULTS: Among 24 620 consultations, we observed 672 cases of chest pain and 300 (44.6%) patients had a diagnosis of chest wall syndrome. It affected all ages with a sex ratio of 1:1. History and sensibility to palpation were the keys for diagnosis. Pain was generally moderate, well localised, continuous or intermittent over a number of hours to days or weeks, and amplified by position or movement. The pain however, may be acute. Eighty-eight patients were affected at several painful sites, and 210 patients at a single site, most frequently in the midline or a left-sided site. Pain was a cause of anxiety and cardiac concern, especially when acute. CWS coexisted with coronary disease in 19 and neoplasm in 6. Outcome at one year was favourable even though CWS recurred in half of patients. CONCLUSION: CWS is common and benign, but leads to anxiety and recurred frequently. Because the majority of chest wall pain is left-sided, the possibility of coexistence with coronary disease needs careful consideration

Promoting Patient Safety and Preventing Medical Error in Emergency Departments

An estimated 108,000 people die each year from potentially preventable iatrogenic injury. One in 50 hospitalized patients experiences a preventable adverse event. Up to 3% of these injuries and events take place in emergency departments. With long and detailed training, morbidity and mortality conferences, and an emphasis on practitioner responsibility, medicine has traditionally faced the challenges of medical error and patient safety through an approach focused almost exclusively on individual practitioners. Yet no matter how well trained and how careful health care providers are, individuals will make mistakes because they are human. In general medicine, the study of adverse drug events has led the way to new methods of error detection and error prevention. A combination of chart reviews, incident logs, observation, and peer solicitation has provided a quantitative tool to demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions such as computer order entry and pharmacist order review. In emergency medicine (EM), error detection has focused on subjects of high liability: missed myocardial infarctions, missed appendicitis, and misreading of radiographs. Some system-level efforts in error prevention have focused on teamwork, on strengthening communication between pharmacists and emergency physicians, on automating drug dosing and distribution, and on rationalizing shifts. This article reviews the definitions, detection, and presentation of error in medicine and EM. Based on review of the current literature, recommendations are offered to enhance the likelihood of reduction of error in EM practice.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74930/1/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00466.x.pd

Effect of alirocumab on mortality after acute coronary syndromes. An analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES randomized clinical trial

Background: Previous trials of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9) inhibitors demonstrated reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events, but not death. We assessed the effects of alirocumab on death after index acute coronary syndrome. Methods: ODYSSEY OUTCOMES (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) was a double-blind, randomized comparison of alirocumab or placebo in 18 924 patients who had an ACS 1 to 12 months previously and elevated atherogenic lipoproteins despite intensive statin therapy. Alirocumab dose was blindly titrated to target achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) between 25 and 50 mg/dL. We examined the effects of treatment on all-cause death and its components, cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death, with log-rank testing. Joint semiparametric models tested associations between nonfatal cardiovascular events and cardiovascular or noncardiovascular death. Results: Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Death occurred in 334 (3.5%) and 392 (4.1%) patients, respectively, in the alirocumab and placebo groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98; P=0.03, nominal P value). This resulted from nonsignificantly fewer cardiovascular (240 [2.5%] vs 271 [2.9%]; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.05; P=0.15) and noncardiovascular (94 [1.0%] vs 121 [1.3%]; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.01; P=0.06) deaths with alirocumab. In a prespecified analysis of 8242 patients eligible for ≥3 years follow-up, alirocumab reduced death (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94; P=0.01). Patients with nonfatal cardiovascular events were at increased risk for cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths (P<0.0001 for the associations). Alirocumab reduced total nonfatal cardiovascular events (P<0.001) and thereby may have attenuated the number of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths. A post hoc analysis found that, compared to patients with lower LDL-C, patients with baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L) had a greater absolute risk of death and a larger mortality benefit from alirocumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.90; Pinteraction=0.007). In the alirocumab group, all-cause death declined wit h achieved LDL-C at 4 months of treatment, to a level of approximately 30 mg/dL (adjusted P=0.017 for linear trend). Conclusions: Alirocumab added to intensive statin therapy has the potential to reduce death after acute coronary syndrome, particularly if treatment is maintained for ≥3 years, if baseline LDL-C is ≥100 mg/dL, or if achieved LDL-C is low. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01663402

Mice, men, mustard and methylated xanthines: the potential role of caffeine and related drugs in the sensitization of human tumours to alkylating agents.

The relationships between DNA damage from UV radiation, alkylating drugs and the methylated xanthines (MX) have been studied in normal and malignant rodent and human cells. A comparison of the level of DNA excision repair (repair replication and unscheduled DNA synthesis) confirms that some forms of alkylating-agent damage (probably mono-filar DNA adducts) are less completely removed by both normal and malignant rodent cells than by their human counterparts, rendering rodent cells more susceptible to the toxic potential of unexcised lesions. The toxicity of alkylating agents can be increased by the presence of several MXs during the period of DNA replication which follows infliction of the damage. Human cells appear capable of excising more DNA damage, rendering them somewhat less susceptible to enhancement of cytotoxicity by MX. This resistance of human cells is only quantitative, however, since 2 human cancer cell lines (HeLa and HT-29) could be sensitized to a variety of alkylating agents by appropriate concentrations of MX. Trimethylxanthine (caffeine) and the 2 clinically useful dimethylxanthines (theophylline and theobromine) appeared equally effective in sensitizing cells. The sensitization was dependent upon a slightly cytotoxic concentration of the MX and a suitably prolonged period of post-damage MX exposure. Of these 3 classic MXs, only theobromine might be clinically useful. The levels required for alkylating-agent sensitization exceed the clinically tolerable level of theophylline, and probably approach the tolerance of man to caffeine. The most likely mechanism by which MX sensitization is achieved is reversal of the inhibition of DNA replicon initiation which follows the infliction of significant DNA damage. Through the selection of suitable clinically useful alkylating agents (those dependent on active cellular transport for cell penetration) and appropriate MX scheduling, an enhanced therapeutic ratio might be achieved, potentially increasing the clinical usefulness of these alkylating agents. MX would thus form a useful class of agents adjuvant to conventional anti-cancer drugs