Manifestations of coronary atherosclerosis in young trauma victims—An autopsy study

AbstractObjectives. The aim of this study was to look at the prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis, its severity aid site of involvement in patients <35 years old who died from noncardiac trauma.Background. Autopsies performed on casualties of the Korean War revealed coronary artery involvement in 77.3% of the hearts studied, and data after the Vietnam War noted the presence of atherosclerosis in 45% of casualties with severe disease in 5%, suggesting a decline in the prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis in young men.Methods. One hundred eleven victims of noncardiac trauma (86.4% white with a mean age of 26 ± 6 years) underwent pathologic examination of their coronary arteries to estimate the presence and severity of coronary atherosclerosis grossly, microscopically and through computerized planimetry. Identified segments of the coronary arteries were sectioned at 3-mm intervals, stained with special stains and after microscopic examination transferred to videotape and digitized to allow estimation of the percent compromise in the lumen area by atherosclerotic plaque.Results. Signs of coronary atherosclerosis were seen in 78.3% of the total study group, with >50% narrowing in 20.7% and >75% narrowing in 9%. No demographic or anatomic features seperated the groups with less or more severe involvement of their coronary arteries. Proximal involvement was more common except in the right coronary artery, which was as frequently involved distally.Conclusions. The overall prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis in a young, predominantly study group was comparable with that noted after the Korean War. Left main or significant two- and three-vessel involvement was noted in 20% of the group studied and emphasizes the need for aggressive risk factor modification in this group

Prolongation of isovolumetric relaxation time as assessed by Doppler echocardiography predicts doxorubicin-induced systolic dysfunction in humans

AbstractA reasonably sensitive and specific noninvasive test for doxorubicin cardiotoxicity is needed. In addition, few data exist on the short- and long-term effects of doxorubicin on diastolic filling. To determine if pulsed Doppler indexes of diastolic filling could predict doxorubicin-induced systolic dysfunction, 26 patients (mean age 48 ± 12 years) were prospectively studied before receiving chemotherapy (control) and 3 weeks after obtaining cumulative doses of doxorubicin.In nine patients developing doxorubicin-induced systolic dysfunction (that is, a decrease in ejection fraction by ≥ 10 ejection fraction units to <55% the isovolumetric relaxation time was prolonged (from 66 ± 18 to 84 ± 24 ms, p < 0.05) after a cumulative doxorubicin dose of 100 to 120 mg/m2. This prolongation preceded a significant decrease in ejection fraction. Other Doppler indexes of filling were impaired after doxorubicin therapy but occurred simultaneously with the decrease in ejection fraction.A >37% increase in isovolumetric relaxation time was 78% (7 of 9) sensitive and 88% (15 of 17) specific for predicting the ultimate development of doxorubicin-induced systolic dysfunction. In 15 patients studied 1 h after the first treatment, doxorubicin enhanced Doppler indexes of filling and shortened isovolumetric relaxation time. In 22 patients, indexes of filling remained impaired and isovolumetric relaxation time was prolonged 3 months after the last doxorubicin dose.In conclusion, doxorubicin-induced systolic dysfunction is reliably predicted by prolongation of Doppler-derived isovolumetric relaxation time. Early after administration, doxorubicin enhances filling and isovolumetric relaxation time. The adverse effects of doxorubicin on both variables persist at least 3 months after cessation of treatment

A Comparison of Veterans with Problematic Opioid Use Identified through Natural Language Processing of Clinical Notes versus Using Diagnostic Codes

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) are a data source for opioid research. Opioid use disorder is known to be under-coded as a diagnosis, yet problematic opioid use can be documented in clinical notes. Objectives: Our goals were 1) to identify problematic opioid use from a full range of clinical notes; and 2) to compare the characteristics of patients identified as having problematic opioid use, exclusively documented in clinical notes, to those having documented ICD opioid use disorder diagnostic codes. Materials and Methods: We developed and applied a natural language processing (NLP) tool to the clinical notes of a patient cohort (n=222,371) from two Veteran Affairs service regions to identify patients with problematic opioid use. We also used a set of ICD diagnostic codes to identify patients with opioid use disorder from the same cohort. We compared the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients identified only through NLP, to those of patients identified through ICD codes. Results: NLP exclusively identified 57,331 patients; 6,997 patients had positive ICD code identifications. Patients exclusively identified through NLP were more likely to be women. Those identified through ICD codes were more likely to be male, younger, have concurrent benzodiazepine prescriptions, more comorbidities, more care encounters, and less likely to be married. Patients in the NLP and ICD groups had substantially elevated comorbidity levels compared to patients not documented as experiencing problematic opioid use. Conclusions: NLP is a feasible approach for identifying problematic opioid use not otherwise recorded by ICD codes. Clinicians may be reluctant to code for opioid use disorder. It is therefore incumbent on the healthcare team to search for documentation of opioid concerns within clinical notes.Comment: 17 pages, 4 figures, 8 table

Opioid use and opioid use disorder in mono and dual-system users of veteran affairs medical centers

IntroductionEfforts to achieve opioid guideline concordant care may be undermined when patients access multiple opioid prescription sources. Limited data are available on the impact of dual-system sources of care on receipt of opioid medications.ObjectiveWe examined whether dual-system use was associated with increased rates of new opioid prescriptions, continued opioid prescriptions and diagnoses of opioid use disorder (OUD). We hypothesized that dual-system use would be associated with increased odds for each outcome.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted using Veterans Administration (VA) data from two facilities from 2015 to 2019, and included active patients, defined as Veterans who had at least one encounter in a calendar year (2015–2019). Dual-system use was defined as receipt of VA care as well as VA payment for community care (non-VA) services. Mono users were defined as those who only received VA services. There were 77,225 dual-system users, and 442,824 mono users. Outcomes were three binary measures: new opioid prescription, continued opioid prescription (i.e., received an additional opioid prescription), and OUD diagnosis (during the calendar year). We conducted a multivariate logistic regression accounting for the repeated observations on patient and intra-class correlations within patients.ResultsDual-system users were significantly younger than mono users, more likely to be women, and less likely to report white race. In adjusted models, dual-system users were significantly more likely to receive a new opioid prescription during the observation period [Odds ratio (OR) = 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.76–1.93], continue prescriptions (OR = 1.24, CI 1.22–1.27), and to receive an OUD diagnosis (OR = 1.20, CI 1.14–1.27).DiscussionThe prevalence of opioid prescriptions has been declining in the US healthcare systems including VA, yet the prevalence of OUD has not been declining at the same rate. One potential problem is that detailed notes from non-VA visits are not immediately available to VA clinicians, and information about VA care is not readily available to non-VA sources. One implication of our findings is that better health system coordination is needed. Even though care was paid for by the VA and presumably closely monitored, dual-system users were more likely to have new and continued opioid prescriptions

ACC/AHA guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction - 2002: Summary article: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina)

The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for the management of unstable angina and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) were published in September 2000.1 Since then, a number of clinical trials and observational studies have been published or presented that, when taken together, alter significantly the recommendations made in that document. Therefore, the ACC/AHA Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina, with the concurrence of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines, revised these guidelines. These revisions were prepared in December 2001, reviewed and approved, and then published on the ACC World Wide Web site (www.acc.org) and AHA World Wide Web site (www.americanheart.org) on March 15, 2002. The present article describes these revisions and provides further updates in this rapidly moving field. Minor clarifications in the wording of three recommendations that now appear differently from those that were previously published on the ACC and AHA Web sites are noted in footnotes

ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction - Summary article: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina)

The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for the management of unstable angina and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) were published in September 2000 (1). Since then, a number of clinical trials and observational studies have been published or presented that, when taken together, alter significantly the recommendations made in that document. Therefore, the ACC/AHA Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina, with the concurrence of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines, revised these guidelines. These revisions were prepared in December 2001, reviewed and approved, and then published on the ACC World Wide Web site (www.acc.org) and AHA World Wide Web site (www.americanheart.org) on March 15, 2002. The present article describes these revisions and provides further updates in this rapidly moving field. Minor clarifications in the wording of three recommendations that now appear differently from those that were previously published on the ACC and AHA Web sites are noted in footnotes

ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the management of patients with unstable angina)

The ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to make recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Unstable angina (UA) and the closely related condition non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are very common manifestations of this disease. In recognition of the importance of the management of this common entity and of the rapid advances in the management of this condition, the need to revise guidelines published by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) in 1994 (1) was evident. This Task Force therefore formed the current committee to develop guidelines for the management of UA and NSTEMI, supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s USCF-Stanford Evidence-Based Practice Center. This document should serve as a useful successor to the 1994 AHCPR guideline

ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina and Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Executive Summary and Recommendations: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina)

The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to make recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Unstable angina (UA) and the closely related condition non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are very common manifestations of this disease. These life-threatening disorders are a major cause of emergency medical care and hospitalizations in the United States. In 1996, the National Center for Health Statistics reported 1 433 000 hospitalizations for UA or NSTEMI. In recognition of the importance of the management of this common entity and of the rapid advances in the management of this condition, the need to revise guidelines published by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in 1994 was evident. This Task Force therefore formed the current committee to develop guidelines for the management of UA and NSTEMI. The present guidelines supersede the 1994 guidelines

The Past, Present, and Future of Comparative Effectiveness Research in the US Department of Veterans Affairs

A particular challenge for the healthcare provider and the patient is to choose among competing therapeutic approaches for a particular condition. Often, the relative benefits and risks of potential therapies are not uniformly available from the existing scientific information. Many have pointed to the need for more comparative effectiveness research (CER) to aide in these decisions. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a long history of conducting CER. The success of the VA CER program has been facilitated by several important aspects of scientific infrastructure related to (1) research question refinement, (2) study design, planning and coordination, (3) evidence synthesis, and (4) implementation research. In publications that had VA coauthors in 2 major medical journals, 25% of the published studies were classified as CER. The most frequent categories of study were pharmaceutical and behavioral interventions. In the future, the CER enterprise will move toward increased input from clinicians in research topic choice and enhanced consideration of other methodologies besides the randomized controlled trial