Hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome: differences related to gender and use of percutaneous coronary procedures

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To identify differences among men and women with acute coronary syndrome in terms of in-hospital mortality, and to assess whether these differences are related to the use of percutaneous cardiovascular procedures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Observational study based on the Minimum Basic Data Set. This encompassed all episodes of emergency hospital admissions (46,007 cases, including 16,391 women and 29,616 men) with a main diagnosis of either myocardial infarction or unstable angina at 32 hospitals within the Andalusian Public Health System over a four-year period (2000–2003). The relationship between gender and mortality was examined for the population as a whole and for stratified groups depending on the type of procedures used (diagnostic coronary catheterisation and/or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty). These combinations were then adjusted for age group, main diagnosis and co-morbidityharlson score).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>During hospitalisation, mortality was 9.6% (4,401 cases out of 46,007), with 11.8% for women and 8.3% for men. There were more deaths among older patients with acute myocardial infarction and greater co-morbidity. Lower mortality was shown in patients undergoing diagnostic catheterisation and/or PTCA. After adjusting for age, diagnosis and co-morbidity, mortality affected women more than men in the overall population (OR 1.14, 95% CI: 1.06–1.22) and in the subgroup of patients where no procedure was performed (OR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.07–1.24). Gender was not an explanatory variable in the subgroups of patients who underwent some kind of procedure.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Gender has not been associated to in-hospital mortality in patients who undergo some kind of percutaneous cardiovascular procedure. However, in the group of patients without either diagnostic catheterisation or angioplasty, mortality was higher in women than in men.</p

Effectiveness of an intervention for improving drug prescription in primary care patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy:Study protocol of a cluster randomized clinical trial (Multi-PAP project)

This study was funded by the Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias ISCIII (Grant Numbers PI15/00276, PI15/00572, PI15/00996), REDISSEC (Project Numbers RD12/0001/0012, RD16/0001/0005), and the European Regional Development Fund ("A way to build Europe").Background: Multimorbidity is associated with negative effects both on people's health and on healthcare systems. A key problem linked to multimorbidity is polypharmacy, which in turn is associated with increased risk of partly preventable adverse effects, including mortality. The Ariadne principles describe a model of care based on a thorough assessment of diseases, treatments (and potential interactions), clinical status, context and preferences of patients with multimorbidity, with the aim of prioritizing and sharing realistic treatment goals that guide an individualized management. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention that implements the Ariadne principles in a population of young-old patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. The intervention seeks to improve the appropriateness of prescribing in primary care (PC), as measured by the medication appropriateness index (MAI) score at 6 and 12months, as compared with usual care. Methods/Design: Design:pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial. Unit of randomization: family physician (FP). Unit of analysis: patient. Scope: PC health centres in three autonomous communities: Aragon, Madrid, and Andalusia (Spain). Population: patients aged 65-74years with multimorbidity (≥3 chronic diseases) and polypharmacy (≥5 drugs prescribed in ≥3months). Sample size: n=400 (200 per study arm). Intervention: complex intervention based on the implementation of the Ariadne principles with two components: (1) FP training and (2) FP-patient interview. Outcomes: MAI score, health services use, quality of life (Euroqol 5D-5L), pharmacotherapy and adherence to treatment (Morisky-Green, Haynes-Sackett), and clinical and socio-demographic variables. Statistical analysis: primary outcome is the difference in MAI score between T0 and T1 and corresponding 95% confidence interval. Adjustment for confounding factors will be performed by multilevel analysis. All analyses will be carried out in accordance with the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: It is essential to provide evidence concerning interventions on PC patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity, conducted in the context of routine clinical practice, and involving young-old patients with significant potential for preventing negative health outcomes. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02866799Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica : proceso asistencial integrado. 3ª ed

Proceso publicado en la página web de la Consejería de Salud: www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud (Consejería de Salud / Profesionales / Nuestro Compromiso por la Calidad / Procesos Asistenciales Integrados)YesLa presente versión del Proceso Asistencial Integrado EPOC nace como una necesidad de actualización de contenidos. Desde la última edición en el año 2007, se han producido cambios relevantes en la clasificación de la enfermedad, que intentan dar una visión más global al manejo del paciente, incorporando en dicha clasificación no sólo la función pulmonar, sino otros aspectos clave, como son los síntomas y las exacerbaciones. Esta edición se ha apoyado en las mejores evidencias disponibles y en las guías de práctica clínica de mayor relevancia, con las connotaciones propias de adaptación a nuestro entorno

Cáncer de Pulmón: Proceso Asistencial Integrado. 2ª ed

YesUno de los procesos asistenciales integrados considerado prioritario entre los elaborados en la primera edición, fue el de Cáncer Pulmón. Las razones que así lo determinaron siguen siendo vigentes pero algunos aspectos han experimentado cambios significativos siendo ésta la razón fundamental que ha motivado una actualización

Contemporary use of cefazolin for MSSA infective endocarditis: analysis of a national prospective cohort

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the real use of cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) in the Spanish National Endocarditis Database (GAMES) and to compare it with antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP). Methods: Prospective cohort study with retrospective analysis of a cohort of MSSA IE treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Outcomes assessed were relapse; intra-hospital, overall, and endocarditis-related mortality; and adverse events. Risk of renal toxicity with each treatment was evaluated separately. Results: We included 631 IE episodes caused by MSSA treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Antibiotic treatment was cloxacillin, cefazolin, or both in 537 (85%), 57 (9%), and 37 (6%) episodes, respectively. Patients treated with cefazolin had significantly higher rates of comorbidities (median Charlson Index 7, P <0.01) and previous renal failure (57.9%, P <0.01). Patients treated with cloxacillin presented higher rates of septic shock (25%, P = 0.033) and new-onset or worsening renal failure (47.3%, P = 0.024) with significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality (38.5%, P = 0.017). One-year IE-related mortality and rate of relapses were similar between treatment groups. None of the treatments were identified as risk or protective factors. Conclusion: Our results suggest that cefazolin is a valuable option for the treatment of MSSA IE, without differences in 1-year mortality or relapses compared with cloxacillin, and might be considered equally effective