Effect of Self-monitoring and Medication Self-titration on Systolic Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Patients at High Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

IMPORTANCE: Self-monitoring of blood pressure with self-titration of antihypertensives (self-management) results in lower blood pressure in patients with hypertension, but there are no data about patients in high-risk groups. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication compared with usual care on systolic blood pressure among patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A primary care, unblinded, randomized clinical trial involving 552 patients who were aged at least 35 years with a history of stroke, coronary heart disease, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease and with baseline blood pressure of at least 130/80 mm Hg being treated at 59 UK primary care practices was conducted between March 2011 and January 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Self-monitoring of blood pressure combined with an individualized self-titration algorithm. During the study period, the office visit blood pressure measurement target was 130/80 mm Hg and the home measurement target was 120/75 mm Hg. Control patients received usual care consisting of seeing their health care clinician for routine blood pressure measurement and adjustment of medication if necessary. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure between intervention and control groups at the 12-month office visit. RESULTS: Primary outcome data were available from 450 patients (81%). The mean baseline blood pressure was 143.1/80.5 mm Hg in the intervention group and 143.6/79.5 mm Hg in the control group. After 12 months, the mean blood pressure had decreased to 128.2/73.8 mm Hg in the intervention group and to 137.8/76.3 mm Hg in the control group, a difference of 9.2 mm Hg (95% CI, 5.7-12.7) in systolic and 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.8-5.0) in diastolic blood pressure following correction for baseline blood pressure. Multiple imputation for missing values gave similar results: the mean baseline was 143.5/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group vs 144.2/79.9 mm Hg in the control group, and at 12 months, the mean was 128.6/73.6 mm Hg in the intervention group vs 138.2/76.4 mm Hg in the control group, with a difference of 8.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.9-12.7) for systolic and 3.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.7-5.5) for diastolic blood pressure between groups. These results were comparable in all subgroups, without excessive adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with hypertension at high risk of cardiovascular disease, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication compared with usual care resulted in lower systolic blood pressure at 12 months

Self management of patients with mild COPD in primary care : randomised controlled trial

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of nurse-led telephone health coaching to encourage self-management in a primary care population with mild symptoms of COPD. Design: Pragmatic, multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Setting: 71 general practices in four areas of England. Participants: 577 people, with MRC dyspnoea grade 1 or 2, recruited from primary care COPD registers with spirometry confirmed diagnosis, were randomised to the intervention (n=289) or usual care (n=288). Interventions: Nurse-delivered telephone health coaching intervention, underpinned by Social Cognitive Theory, promoting: accessing smoking cessation services, increasing physical activity, medication management and action planning (4 sessions over 11 weeks; postal information at weeks 16 and 24). Nurses received two days of training. The usual care group received a leaflet about COPD. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was health related quality of life at 12 months using the short version of the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ-C). Results: The intervention was delivered with good fidelity: 86% of scheduled calls were delivered; 75% of participants received all four calls. 92% participants were followed-up at six months and 89% at 12 months. There was no difference in SGRQ-C total score at 12 months (mean difference -1.3, 95%CI -3.6 to 0.9; p=0.2). Compared to usual care participants, at six months follow-up, the intervention group reported significantly greater physical activity, more had received a care plan (44% v 30%), rescue packs of antibiotics (37% v 29%) and inhaler technique check (68% v 55%). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes (dyspnoea, smoking cessation, anxiety, depression, self-efficacy, objectively measured physical activity). Conclusions A novel telephone health coaching intervention to promote behaviour change in primary care patients with mild symptoms of dyspnoea did lead to changes in self-management activities, but did not improve health related quality of life

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Atrioesophageal Fistula Following Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation.

Atrioesophageal fistula (AEF) is a rare but catastrophic complication of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), with an incidence of 0.03% to 1.5% per year. We report two cases and review the epidemiology, clinical features, pathogenesis, and management of AEF after AF ablation. The principal clinical features of AEF include fever, hematemesis, and neurologic deficits within 2 months after ablation. The close proximity of the esophagus to the posterior left atrial wall is considered responsible for esophageal injury during ablation and the eventual development of AEF. Prophylactic proton pump inhibitors, esophageal temperature monitoring, visualization of the esophagus during catheter ablation, esophageal protection devices, esophageal cooling, and avoidance of energy delivery in close proximity to the esophagus are some techniques to prevent esophageal injury. Eliminating esophageal injury during AF ablation is of utmost importance in preventing AEF. A high index of suspicion and early intervention are necessary to prevent fatal outcomes. Early surgical repair is the mainstay of treatment

The effect of esophageal cooling on esophageal injury during radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) may lead to collateral damage to the esophagus. We tested the hypothesis that luminal esophageal temperature (LET)-guided esophageal cooling might reduce the incidence of esophageal thermal lesions (ETL). METHODS: Seventy-six patients from August 2015 to March 2017 with paroxysmal or persistent AF underwent a first-time catheter ablation procedure with or without LET-guided active esophageal cooling through an orogastric tube placed in the esophagus. Esophageal cooling occurred if and only if LET exceeded 0.5 °C from baseline while ablating the LA posterior wall. All patients underwent esophagogastric endoscopy the next day. RESULTS: Of the 76 patients studied, 38 (50%) patients underwent esophageal cooling. Baseline characteristics of the non-cooled and cooled groups were comparable. Of these, 59% of patients had ETL. There was a non-significant trend for more severe lesions (grades 3, 4) in the non-cooled group (29% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.10). Average power delivered on the left atrial posterior wall (27 ± 1.8 W vs. 27 ± 3.8 W, p = 0.34) and average force of contact (10.1 g vs. 9.8 g, p = 0.38) were similar in both groups while more time was spent ablating on the posterior wall in the non-cooled group (24.6 ± 7.3 min vs. 20.4 ± 5.9 min, p = 0.014). In a multivariate analysis, esophageal cooling had no significant effect on the esophageal lesion grade post-ablation. CONCLUSION: The incidence of ETL in patients undergoing left atrial posterior wall isolation is substantial. Our method of esophageal cooling did not decrease the incidence of ETL. There was a non-significant trend toward fewer severe lesions with cooling, but one cannot conclude the value of cooling from this pilot study

Patient self-management in primary care patients with mild COPD – protocol of a randomised controlled trial of telephone health coaching

Background The prevalence of diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the UK is 1.8%, although it is estimated that this represents less than half of the total disease in the population as much remains undiagnosed. Case finding initiatives in primary care will identify people with mild disease and symptoms. The majority of self-management trials have identified patients from secondary care clinics or following a hospital admission for exacerbation of their condition. This trial will recruit a primary care population with mild symptoms of COPD and use telephone health coaching to encourage self-management. Methods/Design In this study, using a multi-centred randomised controlled trial (RCT) across at least 70 general practices in England, we plan to establish the effectiveness of nurse-led telephone health coaching to support self-management in primary care for people who report only mild symptoms of their COPD (MRC grade 1 and 2) compared to usual care. The intervention focuses on taking up smoking cessation services, increasing physical activity, medication management and action planning and is underpinned by behavioural change theory. In total, we aim to recruit 556 patients with COPD confirmed by spirometry with follow up at six and 12 months. The primary outcome is health related quality of life using the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Spirometry and BMI are measured at baseline. Secondary outcomes include self-reported health behaviours (smoking and physical activity), physical activity measured by accelerometery (at 12 months), psychological morbidity, self-efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Longitudinal qualitative interviews will explore how engaged participants were with the intervention and how embedded behaviour change was in every day practices. Discussion This trial will provide robust evidence about the effectiveness of a novel telephone health coaching intervention to promote behaviour change and prevent disease progression in patients with mild symptoms of dyspnoea in primary care