Building blocks for a clinical imaging informatics environment.

Over the past 20 years, imaging informatics has been driven by the widespread adoption of radiology information and picture archiving and communication and speech recognition systems. These three clinical information systems are commonplace and are intuitive to most radiologists as they replicate familiar paper and film workflow. So what is next? There is a surge of innovation in imaging informatics around advanced workflow, search, electronic medical record aggregation, dashboarding, and analytics tools for quality measures (Nance et al., AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1064-1070, 2013). The challenge lies in not having to rebuild the technological wheel for each of these new applications but instead attempt to share common components through open standards and modern development techniques. The next generation of applications will be built with moving parts that work together to satisfy advanced use cases without replicating databases and without requiring fragile, intense synchronization from clinical systems. The purpose of this paper is to identify building blocks that can position a practice to be able to quickly innovate when addressing clinical, educational, and research-related problems. This paper is the result of identifying common components in the construction of over two dozen clinical informatics projects developed at the University of Maryland Radiology Informatics Research Laboratory. The systems outlined are intended as a mere foundation rather than an exhaustive list of possible extensions

Building blocks for a clinical imaging informatics environment.

Over the past 20 years, imaging informatics has been driven by the widespread adoption of radiology information and picture archiving and communication and speech recognition systems. These three clinical information systems are commonplace and are intuitive to most radiologists as they replicate familiar paper and film workflow. So what is next? There is a surge of innovation in imaging informatics around advanced workflow, search, electronic medical record aggregation, dashboarding, and analytics tools for quality measures (Nance et al., AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1064-1070, 2013). The challenge lies in not having to rebuild the technological wheel for each of these new applications but instead attempt to share common components through open standards and modern development techniques. The next generation of applications will be built with moving parts that work together to satisfy advanced use cases without replicating databases and without requiring fragile, intense synchronization from clinical systems. The purpose of this paper is to identify building blocks that can position a practice to be able to quickly innovate when addressing clinical, educational, and research-related problems. This paper is the result of identifying common components in the construction of over two dozen clinical informatics projects developed at the University of Maryland Radiology Informatics Research Laboratory. The systems outlined are intended as a mere foundation rather than an exhaustive list of possible extensions

Building Blocks for a Clinical Imaging Informatics Environment

Over the past 20 years, imaging informatics has been driven by the widespread adoption of radiology information and picture archiving and communication and speech recognition systems. These three clinical information systems are commonplace and are intuitive to most radiologists as they replicate familiar paper and film workflow. So what is next? There is a surge of innovation in imaging informatics around advanced workflow, search, electronic medical record aggregation, dashboarding, and analytics tools for quality measures (Nance et al., AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1064–1070, 2013). The challenge lies in not having to rebuild the technological wheel for each of these new applications but instead attempt to share common components through open standards and modern development techniques. The next generation of applications will be built with moving parts that work together to satisfy advanced use cases without replicating databases and without requiring fragile, intense synchronization from clinical systems. The purpose of this paper is to identify building blocks that can position a practice to be able to quickly innovate when addressing clinical, educational, and research-related problems. This paper is the result of identifying common components in the construction of over two dozen clinical informatics projects developed at the University of Maryland Radiology Informatics Research Laboratory. The systems outlined are intended as a mere foundation rather than an exhaustive list of possible extensions

The Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Versus Stenting in High-Risk Patients: Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of a Single-Centre Experience

Background: There are limited economic evaluations comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) in contemporary, routine clinical practice. Objective: The aim was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing CABG and PCI in patients with MVCAD, from the perspective of the Australian public hospital payer, using observational data sources. Methods: Clinical data from the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) and the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) registries were analysed for 1022 CABG (treatment) and 978 PCI (comparator) procedures performed between June 2009 and December 2013. Clinical records were linked to same-hospital admissions and national death index (NDI) data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) avoided were evaluated. The propensity score bin bootstrap (PSBB) approach was used to validate base-case results. Results: At mean follow-up of 2.7 years, CABG compared with PCI was associated with increased costs and greater all-cause mortality, but a significantly lower rate of MACCE. An ICER of $55,255 (Australian dollars)/MACCE avoided was observed for the overall cohort. The ICER varied across comparisons against bare metal stents (ICER$25,815/MACCE avoided), all drug-eluting stents (DES) ($56,861), second-generation DES ($42,925), and third-generation of DES ($88,535). Moderate-to-low ICERs were apparent for high-risk subgroups, including those with chronic kidney disease ($62,299), diabetes ($42,819), history of myocardial infarction ($30,431), left main coronary artery disease ($38,864), and heart failure ($36,966). Conclusions: At early follow-up, high-risk subgroups had lower ICERs than the overall cohort when CABG was compared with PCI. A personalised, multidisciplinary approach to treatment of patients may enhance cost containment, as well as improving clinical outcomes following revascularisation strategies

Psychotherapieforschung

These guidelines address the diagnosis and management of atherosclerotic, aneurysmal, and thromboembolic peripheral arterial diseases (PADs). The clinical manifestations of PAD are a major cause of acute and chronic illness, are associated with decrements in functional capacity and quality of life, cause limb amputation, and increase the risk of death. Whereas the term “peripheral arterial disease” encompasses a large series of disorders that affect arterial beds exclusive of the coronary arteries, this writing committee chose to limit the scope of the work of this document to include the disorders of the abdominal aorta, renal and mesenteric arteries, and lower extremity arteries. The purposes of the full guidelines are to (a) aid in the recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PAD of the aorta and lower extremities, addressing its prevalence, impact on quality of life, cardiovascular ischemic risk, and risk of critical limb ischemia (CLI); (b) aid in the recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of renal and visceral arterial diseases; and (c) improve the detection and treatment of abdominal and branch artery aneurysms. Clinical management guidelines for other arterial beds (e.g., the thoracic aorta, carotid and vertebral arteries, and upper-extremity arteries) have been excluded from the current guidelines to focus on the infradiaphragmatic arterial system and in recognition of the robust evidence base that exists for the aortic, visceral, and lower extremity arteries